<?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>1993 (4) TMI 168 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82921</link>
    <description>Pre-deposit under Section 35F was considered in relation to disputed Modvat credit on imported insulating paper, where the applicants argued that Notification No. 177/86-C.E. did not restrict additional duty paid under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act to Rs. 800 per PMT. The analysis relied on Khandelwal Metal and Engineering Works, noting that additional duty of customs under Sections 2 and 3 is not countervailing duty and that the notification proviso did not specifically limit such additional duty. A prima facie case for waiver was therefore established, pre-deposit was dispensed with, and recovery was stayed pending appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Apr 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Jul 2011 12:01:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120066" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (4) TMI 168 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82921</link>
      <description>Pre-deposit under Section 35F was considered in relation to disputed Modvat credit on imported insulating paper, where the applicants argued that Notification No. 177/86-C.E. did not restrict additional duty paid under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act to Rs. 800 per PMT. The analysis relied on Khandelwal Metal and Engineering Works, noting that additional duty of customs under Sections 2 and 3 is not countervailing duty and that the notification proviso did not specifically limit such additional duty. A prima facie case for waiver was therefore established, pre-deposit was dispensed with, and recovery was stayed pending appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Apr 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82921</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>