<?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 (5) TMI 109 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50701</link>
    <description>Split air-conditioners assembled from condensing units, cooling units and accessories at the assessee&#039;s premises were treated as complete goods under Rule 2(a) because the assembled product acquired the essential character of the finished article before clearance, attracting central excise duty. Non-disclosure of the manufacture and clearance supported invocation of the extended limitation period for suppression. Penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 209A were not sustained because the demand pre-dated Section 11AC and the order lacked reasons for the individual penalties. Modvat credit on duty-paid inputs was to be examined on supporting documents, and sale price was to be treated as cum-duty price for recomputation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2010 14:06:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89180" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (5) TMI 109 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50701</link>
      <description>Split air-conditioners assembled from condensing units, cooling units and accessories at the assessee&#039;s premises were treated as complete goods under Rule 2(a) because the assembled product acquired the essential character of the finished article before clearance, attracting central excise duty. Non-disclosure of the manufacture and clearance supported invocation of the extended limitation period for suppression. Penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 209A were not sustained because the demand pre-dated Section 11AC and the order lacked reasons for the individual penalties. Modvat credit on duty-paid inputs was to be examined on supporting documents, and sale price was to be treated as cum-duty price for recomputation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50701</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>