<?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>2009 (3) TMI 318 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75155</link>
    <description>Breakage of PET bottles during manufacture was treated as non-dutiable where the quantity was below 0.5%, fell within the limit referred to in the Board&#039;s circular, and was disclosed in the ER-1 return. The Tribunal followed its earlier view that reasonable breakage, particularly where the duty impact was negligible, justified extending the benefit of doubt to the assessee. On that basis, duty was held not payable on the disputed breakage.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113427" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (3) TMI 318 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75155</link>
      <description>Breakage of PET bottles during manufacture was treated as non-dutiable where the quantity was below 0.5%, fell within the limit referred to in the Board&#039;s circular, and was disclosed in the ER-1 return. The Tribunal followed its earlier view that reasonable breakage, particularly where the duty impact was negligible, justified extending the benefit of doubt to the assessee. On that basis, duty was held not payable on the disputed breakage.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75155</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>