<?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 (6) TMI 271 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107607</link>
    <description>The Tribunal rejected the Revenue&#039;s stay application, upholding the applicability of Notification No. 125/84-C.E. to the respondents&#039; clearances under DFRC. It affirmed that goods cleared from a 100% EOU are subject to Central Excise duty, not Customs duty. The Tribunal dismissed the stay application due to conflicting grounds presented by the Revenue, finding no basis to stay the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2012 17:12:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144624" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (6) TMI 271 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107607</link>
      <description>The Tribunal rejected the Revenue&#039;s stay application, upholding the applicability of Notification No. 125/84-C.E. to the respondents&#039; clearances under DFRC. It affirmed that goods cleared from a 100% EOU are subject to Central Excise duty, not Customs duty. The Tribunal dismissed the stay application due to conflicting grounds presented by the Revenue, finding no basis to stay the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107607</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>