<?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 (7) TMI 501 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108599</link>
    <description>Grey nylon tyre cord fabric could be sent from one factory to another unit of the same assessee for dipping and coating where the receiving unit lacked the required facility, provided the statutory procedure for removal of inputs outside the factory was followed. The commentary treats the rule as broad enough to cover processing within the same legal entity even when the inputs did not first reach the final manufacturing factory, so the demand and penalties on that basis were unsustainable. It also notes that a separate dispute on differential quantity lacked proper factual findings and required fresh adjudication after observing natural justice, so that issue was remanded for de novo consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2012 18:27:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145616" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (7) TMI 501 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108599</link>
      <description>Grey nylon tyre cord fabric could be sent from one factory to another unit of the same assessee for dipping and coating where the receiving unit lacked the required facility, provided the statutory procedure for removal of inputs outside the factory was followed. The commentary treats the rule as broad enough to cover processing within the same legal entity even when the inputs did not first reach the final manufacturing factory, so the demand and penalties on that basis were unsustainable. It also notes that a separate dispute on differential quantity lacked proper factual findings and required fresh adjudication after observing natural justice, so that issue was remanded for de novo consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108599</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>