<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2000 (8) TMI 152 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49948</link>
    <description>A job worker was not liable to penalty where duty had been assessed on the trader&#039;s declared value and the department failed to show suppression by the job worker. The misdeclaration was attributable to the trader; once the correct value emerged, the job worker paid the differential duty. On those facts, the penal provisions could not be applied to the job worker for the trader&#039;s declaration, and the penalty was held unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:48:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88428" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (8) TMI 152 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49948</link>
      <description>A job worker was not liable to penalty where duty had been assessed on the trader&#039;s declared value and the department failed to show suppression by the job worker. The misdeclaration was attributable to the trader; once the correct value emerged, the job worker paid the differential duty. On those facts, the penal provisions could not be applied to the job worker for the trader&#039;s declaration, and the penalty was held unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49948</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>