<?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 (12) TMI 418 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114716</link>
    <description>Waiver of pre-deposit was granted and recovery of duty and penalty was stayed where the disputed goods were claimed to be bushes, not bearings simplicitor, in captive consumption for manufacture of PD pumps. The appellants established a strong prima facie case because the exemption notification contained an entry similar to one previously interpreted by the Tribunal, and earlier precedent had treated guide bushes as outside the scope of bearings while extending exemption under a predecessor notification. At the interim stage, the Commissioner&#039;s view classifying the goods as bearings was found not to align with that precedent, supporting stay of recovery.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 May 2012 13:16:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151715" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (12) TMI 418 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114716</link>
      <description>Waiver of pre-deposit was granted and recovery of duty and penalty was stayed where the disputed goods were claimed to be bushes, not bearings simplicitor, in captive consumption for manufacture of PD pumps. The appellants established a strong prima facie case because the exemption notification contained an entry similar to one previously interpreted by the Tribunal, and earlier precedent had treated guide bushes as outside the scope of bearings while extending exemption under a predecessor notification. At the interim stage, the Commissioner&#039;s view classifying the goods as bearings was found not to align with that precedent, supporting stay of recovery.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114716</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>