<?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>2026 (5) TMI 366 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791164</link>
    <description>Conversion of mineral sands into concentrates was treated as manufacture under Note 4 of Chapter 26 read with Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, making the resultant goods dutiable. Procedural non-compliance was held not to defeat duty-free clearance benefits for 100% EOUs where the assessee acted under a bona fide belief and the underlying receipt of goods was not disproved on a technical objection. Exclusion of &#039;as such&#039; clearances from turnover was allowed where the department failed to establish, through proper verification, that the removals were processed goods. The extended period of limitation was held unavailable in an interpretational dispute absent suppression with intent to evade duty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 May 2026 07:07:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=900401" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (5) TMI 366 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791164</link>
      <description>Conversion of mineral sands into concentrates was treated as manufacture under Note 4 of Chapter 26 read with Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, making the resultant goods dutiable. Procedural non-compliance was held not to defeat duty-free clearance benefits for 100% EOUs where the assessee acted under a bona fide belief and the underlying receipt of goods was not disproved on a technical objection. Exclusion of &#039;as such&#039; clearances from turnover was allowed where the department failed to establish, through proper verification, that the removals were processed goods. The extended period of limitation was held unavailable in an interpretational dispute absent suppression with intent to evade duty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791164</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>