<?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 (7) TMI 488 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113051</link>
    <description>Rule 49A was an enabling deferment provision for duty on yarn used captively in textile fabrication, so interest could not be levied unless deferment had actually been permitted or sought; the interest demand was therefore set aside. Removal of yarn without discharging duty before use in fabrication, where the deferment facility was not availed, was contrary to the rules and attracted penalty under Rule 173Q(1); the penalty was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 May 2012 15:19:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150067" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (7) TMI 488 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113051</link>
      <description>Rule 49A was an enabling deferment provision for duty on yarn used captively in textile fabrication, so interest could not be levied unless deferment had actually been permitted or sought; the interest demand was therefore set aside. Removal of yarn without discharging duty before use in fabrication, where the deferment facility was not availed, was contrary to the rules and attracted penalty under Rule 173Q(1); the penalty was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113051</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>