<?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>2001 (1) TMI 187 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50594</link>
    <description>Attaching headers to lead sheets for electrolysis was treated as a functional aid that did not change the basic character of the goods or create a new marketable commodity, so the lead sheets remained classifiable under sub-heading 7801 and the contrary claim under sub-heading 8543 failed. Mere non-entry of zinc ingots in RG 1 was insufficient to establish clandestine removal without cogent evidence of deliberate suppression or intent to evade duty, so the duty demand and penalty were not sustained. The discussion affirms that manufacture requires emergence of a new excisable product and that penal consequences require proof of evasion, not merely a record-keeping lapse.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:29:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89074" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (1) TMI 187 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50594</link>
      <description>Attaching headers to lead sheets for electrolysis was treated as a functional aid that did not change the basic character of the goods or create a new marketable commodity, so the lead sheets remained classifiable under sub-heading 7801 and the contrary claim under sub-heading 8543 failed. Mere non-entry of zinc ingots in RG 1 was insufficient to establish clandestine removal without cogent evidence of deliberate suppression or intent to evade duty, so the duty demand and penalty were not sustained. The discussion affirms that manufacture requires emergence of a new excisable product and that penal consequences require proof of evasion, not merely a record-keeping lapse.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50594</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>