<?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>2002 (12) TMI 485 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108392</link>
    <description>Rule 57AB(1)(b) requires that when inputs are removed as such after credit is taken, the appropriate excise duty leviable on those inputs must be paid, and the clearance must be under the prescribed invoice. The rule was treated as distinct from the earlier wording in Rule 57F(1), so the prior decision relied on was held inapplicable. On the facts, the duty demand was found to accord with the rule, and the reduced penalty was not further scaled down.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Mar 2012 13:15:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145409" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (12) TMI 485 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108392</link>
      <description>Rule 57AB(1)(b) requires that when inputs are removed as such after credit is taken, the appropriate excise duty leviable on those inputs must be paid, and the clearance must be under the prescribed invoice. The rule was treated as distinct from the earlier wording in Rule 57F(1), so the prior decision relied on was held inapplicable. On the facts, the duty demand was found to accord with the rule, and the reduced penalty was not further scaled down.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108392</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>