<?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>2003 (11) TMI 544 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114219</link>
    <description>Abatement of duty under Rule 96ZP(2) is available where factory closure for a continuous period of at least seven days is established and not disputed. The rule sets only a minimum closure period and does not impose a maximum limit, so abatement cannot be refused merely because duty is otherwise computed with reference to annual capacity of production. On the facts stated, the closure period qualified for relief and the duty demand was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 May 2012 12:59:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151218" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (11) TMI 544 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114219</link>
      <description>Abatement of duty under Rule 96ZP(2) is available where factory closure for a continuous period of at least seven days is established and not disputed. The rule sets only a minimum closure period and does not impose a maximum limit, so abatement cannot be refused merely because duty is otherwise computed with reference to annual capacity of production. On the facts stated, the closure period qualified for relief and the duty demand was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114219</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>