<?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 (3) TMI 586 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109460</link>
    <description>Waiver of pre-deposit was granted where the demand arose from damaged textile goods and made-up articles dealt with under export bond procedures. The applicants had informed the department about the damage, proposed sale and disposal basis, and the record showed that the goods were admittedly damaged and sold at the actual sale price. The Tribunal found prima facie force in the limitation plea and in the contention that the transaction value of the damaged goods did not sustain the confirmed duty demand. It also observed, prima facie, that the job-workers did not appear to bear a separate duty liability and that penalty was not justified at this stage.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2012 13:02:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146477" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (3) TMI 586 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109460</link>
      <description>Waiver of pre-deposit was granted where the demand arose from damaged textile goods and made-up articles dealt with under export bond procedures. The applicants had informed the department about the damage, proposed sale and disposal basis, and the record showed that the goods were admittedly damaged and sold at the actual sale price. The Tribunal found prima facie force in the limitation plea and in the contention that the transaction value of the damaged goods did not sustain the confirmed duty demand. It also observed, prima facie, that the job-workers did not appear to bear a separate duty liability and that penalty was not justified at this stage.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109460</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>