<?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 (8) TMI 279 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88959</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled in favor of the appellants in a case involving alleged non-compliance with Central Excise procedures and duty payment for electric motors and cheese winding machines. The Tribunal found that the appellants had filed declarations for the products and were eligible for benefits under a previous notification until its rescission. It was held that procedural irregularities could not negate substantive benefits, and the demand for duty was deemed time-barred. The penalty imposed without quantifying the duty was considered unsustainable, leading to the appeal being allowed and the impugned order set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2011 15:16:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126022" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (8) TMI 279 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88959</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled in favor of the appellants in a case involving alleged non-compliance with Central Excise procedures and duty payment for electric motors and cheese winding machines. The Tribunal found that the appellants had filed declarations for the products and were eligible for benefits under a previous notification until its rescission. It was held that procedural irregularities could not negate substantive benefits, and the demand for duty was deemed time-barred. The penalty imposed without quantifying the duty was considered unsustainable, leading to the appeal being allowed and the impugned order set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88959</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>