<?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>2003 (6) TMI 120 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52200</link>
    <description>Clearances treated as exempted goods attracted Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 where separate inventory and accounts for inputs were not maintained, so the assessee remained liable to pay 8% of the price of the exempted goods at clearance. The amount payable under Rule 57CC was, however, not duty of excise, so Section 11AC and Section 11AB did not apply. On the facts, penalty under Rule 173Q was also not warranted, and the demand was not treated as time barred because Rule 57CC contained no limitation period. The appeal succeeded only on penalty and interest, while the substantive liability was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Oct 2010 11:39:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90678" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (6) TMI 120 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52200</link>
      <description>Clearances treated as exempted goods attracted Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 where separate inventory and accounts for inputs were not maintained, so the assessee remained liable to pay 8% of the price of the exempted goods at clearance. The amount payable under Rule 57CC was, however, not duty of excise, so Section 11AC and Section 11AB did not apply. On the facts, penalty under Rule 173Q was also not warranted, and the demand was not treated as time barred because Rule 57CC contained no limitation period. The appeal succeeded only on penalty and interest, while the substantive liability was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52200</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>