<?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 (5) TMI 388 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111931</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi ruled in favor of the appellants in a case involving the confiscation of excess inputs and redemption fine, as well as the confiscation of ACC &amp;amp; ANT conductors manufactured on a job work basis. The Tribunal set aside the confiscation of steel wire used for manufacturing conductors due to lack of entry in stock and no duty credit availed. Additionally, the confiscation of ACC &amp;amp; ANT conductors was overturned as the responsibility for proper records and intimation for job work lay with the supplier, not the present appellant. The appeal was allowed in both instances.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2012 18:27:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148947" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (5) TMI 388 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111931</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi ruled in favor of the appellants in a case involving the confiscation of excess inputs and redemption fine, as well as the confiscation of ACC &amp;amp; ANT conductors manufactured on a job work basis. The Tribunal set aside the confiscation of steel wire used for manufacturing conductors due to lack of entry in stock and no duty credit availed. Additionally, the confiscation of ACC &amp;amp; ANT conductors was overturned as the responsibility for proper records and intimation for job work lay with the supplier, not the present appellant. The appeal was allowed in both instances.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111931</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>