<?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 (6) TMI 416 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112154</link>
    <description>Carbon sludge or carbon sludge/dust cleared from an effluent treatment plant was treated as falling within the exemption for sludge obtained in an industrial unit&#039;s effluent treatment plant. The demand under sub-heading 2803.00 of the CETA Schedule was not prima facie sustainable because that entry covers carbon and other forms of carbon not elsewhere specified, while the Chemical Examiner&#039;s report described the material as an aqueous paste of carbon dust with traces of calcium compound and did not establish elemental carbon. On that prima facie view, the duty demand lacked support and penalty protection was warranted, justifying waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery pending appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 18:09:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=149170" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (6) TMI 416 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112154</link>
      <description>Carbon sludge or carbon sludge/dust cleared from an effluent treatment plant was treated as falling within the exemption for sludge obtained in an industrial unit&#039;s effluent treatment plant. The demand under sub-heading 2803.00 of the CETA Schedule was not prima facie sustainable because that entry covers carbon and other forms of carbon not elsewhere specified, while the Chemical Examiner&#039;s report described the material as an aqueous paste of carbon dust with traces of calcium compound and did not establish elemental carbon. On that prima facie view, the duty demand lacked support and penalty protection was warranted, justifying waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery pending appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112154</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>