<?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 (10) TMI 401 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114530</link>
    <description>Rule 173H(2) of the Central Excise Rules permits return of duty-paid excisable goods for remaking or reprocessing on the basis of duty-paying documents, and its proviso allows relaxation where collateral evidence establishes identity of the goods. On the stated facts, the buyer returned the goods, the assessee promptly filed the D-3 declaration, produced its own invoice copy, and later furnished the buyer&#039;s copy as well. As identity and duty-paid character were established from the documents and surrounding evidence, a procedural delay in producing the buyer&#039;s copy did not justify denial of the rule benefit, and the resulting duty demand and penalty were not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 13:50:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151529" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (10) TMI 401 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114530</link>
      <description>Rule 173H(2) of the Central Excise Rules permits return of duty-paid excisable goods for remaking or reprocessing on the basis of duty-paying documents, and its proviso allows relaxation where collateral evidence establishes identity of the goods. On the stated facts, the buyer returned the goods, the assessee promptly filed the D-3 declaration, produced its own invoice copy, and later furnished the buyer&#039;s copy as well. As identity and duty-paid character were established from the documents and surrounding evidence, a procedural delay in producing the buyer&#039;s copy did not justify denial of the rule benefit, and the resulting duty demand and penalty were not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114530</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>