<?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 161 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51437</link>
    <description>Exemption for waste and scrap from ship breaking under Notifications No. 208/83-C.E. and 101/87-C.E. was confined to inputs and final products matching the tariff descriptions, with the inputs having borne the required duty and no credit taken. Materials from ship breaking were treated as outside the notification for the relevant periods, and the later amendment was viewed as creating new coverage rather than clarifying existing relief, so it did not apply retrospectively. On limitation, non-filing of proper declarations and returns, together with the absence of specific departmental notice, supported the extended period; the demands were therefore not time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:27:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89915" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (9) TMI 161 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51437</link>
      <description>Exemption for waste and scrap from ship breaking under Notifications No. 208/83-C.E. and 101/87-C.E. was confined to inputs and final products matching the tariff descriptions, with the inputs having borne the required duty and no credit taken. Materials from ship breaking were treated as outside the notification for the relevant periods, and the later amendment was viewed as creating new coverage rather than clarifying existing relief, so it did not apply retrospectively. On limitation, non-filing of proper declarations and returns, together with the absence of specific departmental notice, supported the extended period; the demands were therefore not time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51437</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>