<?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>2004 (2) TMI 434 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110921</link>
    <description>Returned consignments re-entered into the factory, were intimated to the department, and were subsequently re-cleared to new buyers after cancellation of the original invoices and issue of fresh invoices. On those facts, the mere time gap between the first clearance and the later re-clearance did not by itself make the goods freshly dutiable. In the absence of evidence that the later clearances were not of returned goods, the duty demand could not be sustained, and procedural non-compliance with Rule 173H was held insufficient on its own to support the demand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 12:12:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147937" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (2) TMI 434 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110921</link>
      <description>Returned consignments re-entered into the factory, were intimated to the department, and were subsequently re-cleared to new buyers after cancellation of the original invoices and issue of fresh invoices. On those facts, the mere time gap between the first clearance and the later re-clearance did not by itself make the goods freshly dutiable. In the absence of evidence that the later clearances were not of returned goods, the duty demand could not be sustained, and procedural non-compliance with Rule 173H was held insufficient on its own to support the demand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110921</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>