<?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 (3) TMI 198 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51802</link>
    <description>Common control, intermingled operations, related partners, shared accounting support and movement of goods between the units justified clubbing of clearances for exemption purposes, and non-disclosure of the material facts made the extended period of limitation invocable. On that basis, the note states that Modvat credit on inputs remained admissible, so the demand on that ground was unsustainable. Goods removed without duty payment or not entered in statutory records were liable to confiscation, but the redemption fine was reduced as excessive. Penalties were sustained in reduced form against one unit and the partner, while the penalty on the other unit was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Sep 2010 14:47:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90280" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (3) TMI 198 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51802</link>
      <description>Common control, intermingled operations, related partners, shared accounting support and movement of goods between the units justified clubbing of clearances for exemption purposes, and non-disclosure of the material facts made the extended period of limitation invocable. On that basis, the note states that Modvat credit on inputs remained admissible, so the demand on that ground was unsustainable. Goods removed without duty payment or not entered in statutory records were liable to confiscation, but the redemption fine was reduced as excessive. Penalties were sustained in reduced form against one unit and the partner, while the penalty on the other unit was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51802</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>