<?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 (12) TMI 104 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52385</link>
    <description>Assembling supplied components of a water purification and filtration system on a base frame was treated as manufacture because the finished unit emerged as a commercially distinct product with a separate identity, character and use. The non-disclosure of the activity to the department supported invocation of the extended limitation period, and a legal opinion alone did not negate suppression where no prior Tribunal ruling established a bona fide belief. Penalty on the company was sustained, subject to reduction in quantum, but the director&#039;s penalty was set aside for lack of material showing personal knowledge of the goods&#039; liability to confiscation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Oct 2010 15:22:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90862" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (12) TMI 104 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52385</link>
      <description>Assembling supplied components of a water purification and filtration system on a base frame was treated as manufacture because the finished unit emerged as a commercially distinct product with a separate identity, character and use. The non-disclosure of the activity to the department supported invocation of the extended limitation period, and a legal opinion alone did not negate suppression where no prior Tribunal ruling established a bona fide belief. Penalty on the company was sustained, subject to reduction in quantum, but the director&#039;s penalty was set aside for lack of material showing personal knowledge of the goods&#039; liability to confiscation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52385</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>