<?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>2002 (9) TMI 160 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51434</link>
    <description>An exemption notification must be applied strictly to its express terms, and a condition not stated in the notification cannot be added to deny relief; on that basis, cement produced with part of the clinker purchased from outside the factory remained eligible for Notification No. 24/91-C.E., and the hollow blocks manufactured at site for the compound wall were held exempt under Notification No. 59/90. The record nevertheless supported suppression of facts and clandestine removal through account discrepancies, employee statements, and allied records, so the duty demand on the remaining clearances and the extended period were upheld. A composite penalty imposed under Section 11AC read with Rule 173Q was unsustainable because the dispute period predated Section 11AC and the penalty was not properly apportioned, so the penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:21:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89912" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (9) TMI 160 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51434</link>
      <description>An exemption notification must be applied strictly to its express terms, and a condition not stated in the notification cannot be added to deny relief; on that basis, cement produced with part of the clinker purchased from outside the factory remained eligible for Notification No. 24/91-C.E., and the hollow blocks manufactured at site for the compound wall were held exempt under Notification No. 59/90. The record nevertheless supported suppression of facts and clandestine removal through account discrepancies, employee statements, and allied records, so the duty demand on the remaining clearances and the extended period were upheld. A composite penalty imposed under Section 11AC read with Rule 173Q was unsustainable because the dispute period predated Section 11AC and the penalty was not properly apportioned, so the penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51434</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>