<?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>1998 (6) TMI 132 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88681</link>
    <description>Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery were considered on the basis of prima facie merits, Modvat credit availability, and limitation. The goods were treated, on the material available, as comparable to an earlier Tribunal product and as having acquired the essential character of crayons, with one sample viewed differently; this supported partial relief. Modvat credit on inputs was also noted as reducing the effective duty exposure. The limitation plea was not accepted prima facie because the permission relied on concerned wax crayons, which were treated as different products, and there was no material showing that the department had been informed that the product in question had come into existence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:28:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125746" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (6) TMI 132 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88681</link>
      <description>Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery were considered on the basis of prima facie merits, Modvat credit availability, and limitation. The goods were treated, on the material available, as comparable to an earlier Tribunal product and as having acquired the essential character of crayons, with one sample viewed differently; this supported partial relief. Modvat credit on inputs was also noted as reducing the effective duty exposure. The limitation plea was not accepted prima facie because the permission relied on concerned wax crayons, which were treated as different products, and there was no material showing that the department had been informed that the product in question had come into existence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88681</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>