<?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>1997 (9) TMI 238 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87399</link>
    <description>Notification No. 95/83 operated as a set-off provision granting duty relief on specified finished products to the extent of duty paid on prescribed inputs. The dispute concerned electric stampings and laminations used first to make electric motors, which were then used in manufacturing electric fans, and whether relief could be denied merely because duty had not been paid on the intermediate motors. The assessee&#039;s offer to pay duty on the motors had not been examined, and the appellate order also failed to consider the Ministry&#039;s instructions and the settled position on cash refund in special circumstances. The matter was therefore required to be reconsidered by the original authority after hearing the assessee and allowing additional evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Sep 2011 17:11:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124466" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (9) TMI 238 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87399</link>
      <description>Notification No. 95/83 operated as a set-off provision granting duty relief on specified finished products to the extent of duty paid on prescribed inputs. The dispute concerned electric stampings and laminations used first to make electric motors, which were then used in manufacturing electric fans, and whether relief could be denied merely because duty had not been paid on the intermediate motors. The assessee&#039;s offer to pay duty on the motors had not been examined, and the appellate order also failed to consider the Ministry&#039;s instructions and the settled position on cash refund in special circumstances. The matter was therefore required to be reconsidered by the original authority after hearing the assessee and allowing additional evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87399</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>