<?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>2005 (2) TMI 423 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54511</link>
    <description>Strict construction of exemption notifications led to old, worn or unusable gunny bag waste being treated as textile rags fit only for fibre recovery, so pulp made from such waste fell within the exclusion from concessional duty under the relevant notifications. On limitation, mere description of the material as jute waste was held insufficient to show conscious suppression or deliberate misdeclaration, and the extended period could not be invoked without proof of withholding correct information. The result was denial of exemption on merits, while recovery remained confined to the normal limitation period and penalty and interest were left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2010 13:57:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92988" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 423 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54511</link>
      <description>Strict construction of exemption notifications led to old, worn or unusable gunny bag waste being treated as textile rags fit only for fibre recovery, so pulp made from such waste fell within the exclusion from concessional duty under the relevant notifications. On limitation, mere description of the material as jute waste was held insufficient to show conscious suppression or deliberate misdeclaration, and the extended period could not be invoked without proof of withholding correct information. The result was denial of exemption on merits, while recovery remained confined to the normal limitation period and penalty and interest were left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54511</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>