<?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>2001 (5) TMI 485 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97850</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal on merits with consequential benefits. The duty liability on mineral water &quot;Trupthi&quot; was upheld even prior to 16-3-1995 due to the manufacturing process involved. The product was classified under sub-heading No. 2201.90 of the Central Excise Tariff. The extended period of limitation for demanding central excise duty was invoked but restricted to a specific period. The assessable value and quantum of duty payable were determined based on the cum-duty price. Eligibility for Modvat credit was extended to NEPC. The majority order favored the appellant on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:12:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134907" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (5) TMI 485 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97850</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal on merits with consequential benefits. The duty liability on mineral water &quot;Trupthi&quot; was upheld even prior to 16-3-1995 due to the manufacturing process involved. The product was classified under sub-heading No. 2201.90 of the Central Excise Tariff. The extended period of limitation for demanding central excise duty was invoked but restricted to a specific period. The assessable value and quantum of duty payable were determined based on the cum-duty price. Eligibility for Modvat credit was extended to NEPC. The majority order favored the appellant on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97850</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>