<?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 482 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113542</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of M/s. Sree Karthikeya Lamination Industries Pvt. Ltd. (SKL) by deeming the demand of duty on HDPE Laminated Fabrics unsustainable due to a factual dispute regarding goods cleared under Chapter X Procedure. This decision resulted in a full waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery. On the other hand, M/s. Sri Ram Industries (Woven Sacks) Pvt. Ltd. (SRI) was directed to pre-deposit the outstanding duty amount for goods received from SKL under Chapter X Procedure, emphasizing the importance of providing evidence to support duty payment claims. The judgment underscores the necessity of resolving factual disputes and ensuring proper documentation in excise duty matters.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 May 2012 17:22:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150548" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (6) TMI 482 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113542</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of M/s. Sree Karthikeya Lamination Industries Pvt. Ltd. (SKL) by deeming the demand of duty on HDPE Laminated Fabrics unsustainable due to a factual dispute regarding goods cleared under Chapter X Procedure. This decision resulted in a full waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery. On the other hand, M/s. Sri Ram Industries (Woven Sacks) Pvt. Ltd. (SRI) was directed to pre-deposit the outstanding duty amount for goods received from SKL under Chapter X Procedure, emphasizing the importance of providing evidence to support duty payment claims. The judgment underscores the necessity of resolving factual disputes and ensuring proper documentation in excise duty matters.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113542</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>