<?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>1991 (7) TMI 204 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81638</link>
    <description>Unconditional stay was granted where the dispute arose from a MODVAT job work arrangement and the goods were moved under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. The Tribunal held that the record disclosed, at the highest, a procedural contravention under Rule 57F relating to movement of inputs and return of processed goods. On the facts presented, there was no evasion of duty, only a procedural infraction, and the stay petitions were allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jul 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Jun 2011 18:17:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118783" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (7) TMI 204 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81638</link>
      <description>Unconditional stay was granted where the dispute arose from a MODVAT job work arrangement and the goods were moved under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. The Tribunal held that the record disclosed, at the highest, a procedural contravention under Rule 57F relating to movement of inputs and return of processed goods. On the facts presented, there was no evasion of duty, only a procedural infraction, and the stay petitions were allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jul 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81638</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>