<?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>2003 (2) TMI 285 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107364</link>
    <description>In a pre-deposit and stay application, weak prima facie support on classification and an unsubstantiated limitation objection justified only partial interim relief. The products were found prima facie classifiable against the applicants&#039; case, and the material on record did not sufficiently establish the claimed cooking process. The classification declarations also did not show compliance with the prescribed verification of manufacturing process, so the extended period objection was not accepted at that stage. Complete waiver of pre-deposit was therefore declined, with only a part-deposit directed and recovery of the balance stayed pending compliance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2012 18:40:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144381" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (2) TMI 285 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107364</link>
      <description>In a pre-deposit and stay application, weak prima facie support on classification and an unsubstantiated limitation objection justified only partial interim relief. The products were found prima facie classifiable against the applicants&#039; case, and the material on record did not sufficiently establish the claimed cooking process. The classification declarations also did not show compliance with the prescribed verification of manufacturing process, so the extended period objection was not accepted at that stage. Complete waiver of pre-deposit was therefore declined, with only a part-deposit directed and recovery of the balance stayed pending compliance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107364</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>