<?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 (10) TMI 118 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54569</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants in a case concerning excise duty liability on &#039;specials&#039; fabricated for a pipeline project. It held that the &#039;specials&#039; were not marketable and thus not subject to excise duty. Additionally, items manufactured by job workers were found not to be the liability of the appellants for duty payment. Allegations of clandestine clearance and suppression of facts were dismissed due to lack of evidence, leading to the rejection of duty demands and penalties. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner&#039;s order, concluding that no duty demands or penalties were sustainable against the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2010 18:50:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=93046" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 118 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54569</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants in a case concerning excise duty liability on &#039;specials&#039; fabricated for a pipeline project. It held that the &#039;specials&#039; were not marketable and thus not subject to excise duty. Additionally, items manufactured by job workers were found not to be the liability of the appellants for duty payment. Allegations of clandestine clearance and suppression of facts were dismissed due to lack of evidence, leading to the rejection of duty demands and penalties. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner&#039;s order, concluding that no duty demands or penalties were sustainable against the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54569</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>