<?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 429 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112296</link>
    <description>Prima facie waiver of pre-deposit was granted for most duty demands and penalties, while a limited deposit was retained. The demand on loaded value of lagging sheets was not fully waived because the CAS-4 valuation plea and Board circular did not show a strong case for retrospective application. The demand on repacked solution and hardener raised a substantial limitation objection, as the claim was beyond the normal period and no clear basis for extended limitation was found. The clubbing of clearances issue was controlled by an earlier final finding between the same parties that the two units could not be clubbed for SSI purposes, supporting stay of recovery and dispensation with penalty pre-deposit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:28:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=149312" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (5) TMI 429 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112296</link>
      <description>Prima facie waiver of pre-deposit was granted for most duty demands and penalties, while a limited deposit was retained. The demand on loaded value of lagging sheets was not fully waived because the CAS-4 valuation plea and Board circular did not show a strong case for retrospective application. The demand on repacked solution and hardener raised a substantial limitation objection, as the claim was beyond the normal period and no clear basis for extended limitation was found. The clubbing of clearances issue was controlled by an earlier final finding between the same parties that the two units could not be clubbed for SSI purposes, supporting stay of recovery and dispensation with penalty pre-deposit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112296</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>