<?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 (9) TMI 139 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50652</link>
    <description>Manufactured parts of P.D. pumps were treated as excisable goods because goods made in India are dutiable under the Central Excise Act and marketability is satisfied where the goods are capable of being bought and sold. The claimed exemptions were rejected for the relevant period: Notification No. 57/75-C.E. was unavailable, Notification No. 281/86-C.E. did not apply because the goods were not used in the factory of manufacture or another factory of the same manufacturer, and eligibility under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. was left for verification. Non-disclosure of manufacture and removal supported invocation of the extended period for suppression, while interest and penalty under Sections 11AB and 11AC were confined to the post-insertion period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2010 11:39:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89131" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (9) TMI 139 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50652</link>
      <description>Manufactured parts of P.D. pumps were treated as excisable goods because goods made in India are dutiable under the Central Excise Act and marketability is satisfied where the goods are capable of being bought and sold. The claimed exemptions were rejected for the relevant period: Notification No. 57/75-C.E. was unavailable, Notification No. 281/86-C.E. did not apply because the goods were not used in the factory of manufacture or another factory of the same manufacturer, and eligibility under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. was left for verification. Non-disclosure of manufacture and removal supported invocation of the extended period for suppression, while interest and penalty under Sections 11AB and 11AC were confined to the post-insertion period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50652</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>