<?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 (10) TMI 163 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50381</link>
    <description>Failure to disclose a material commercial arrangement during classification and exemption proceedings can justify invocation of the extended period where the disclosure is incomplete despite approval of classification lists. On those facts, the duty demand and penalty on the manufacturer were sustained as being within time. However, penalty under Rule 209A against the co-noticee was not maintainable in the absence of a specific finding of contravention, knowledge of suppression, or participation in the short-payment of duty, and the mere existence of a commercial agreement was held insufficient. The separate penalty on the co-noticee was therefore deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Aug 2010 13:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88861" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (10) TMI 163 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50381</link>
      <description>Failure to disclose a material commercial arrangement during classification and exemption proceedings can justify invocation of the extended period where the disclosure is incomplete despite approval of classification lists. On those facts, the duty demand and penalty on the manufacturer were sustained as being within time. However, penalty under Rule 209A against the co-noticee was not maintainable in the absence of a specific finding of contravention, knowledge of suppression, or participation in the short-payment of duty, and the mere existence of a commercial agreement was held insufficient. The separate penalty on the co-noticee was therefore deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50381</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>