<?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 378 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108872</link>
    <description>Superior kerosene oil cleared during the relevant period was treated as chargeable at 10% ad valorem under Notification No. 8/96-C.E., because kerosene falling under Chapter 27 was covered by Serial No. 27.17 and the Tax Research Unit had clarified that rate. The Tribunal also noted that similar demands against another unit had already been dropped on the same ground. On that basis, the assessee&#039;s rate classification was accepted, and the differential duty demand with consequential penalty was held not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2012 13:09:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145889" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (2) TMI 378 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108872</link>
      <description>Superior kerosene oil cleared during the relevant period was treated as chargeable at 10% ad valorem under Notification No. 8/96-C.E., because kerosene falling under Chapter 27 was covered by Serial No. 27.17 and the Tax Research Unit had clarified that rate. The Tribunal also noted that similar demands against another unit had already been dropped on the same ground. On that basis, the assessee&#039;s rate classification was accepted, and the differential duty demand with consequential penalty was held not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108872</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>