<?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 (11) TMI 410 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114749</link>
    <description>A strong prima facie case on the applicability of an exemption notification can justify waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery at the interim stage. The tribunal found that the denial of exemption was not free from doubt and that, on stay proceedings, the use of consumables with raw material did not by itself justify refusal of interim protection. Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the duty demand and penalty were therefore granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 May 2012 16:15:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151748" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (11) TMI 410 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114749</link>
      <description>A strong prima facie case on the applicability of an exemption notification can justify waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery at the interim stage. The tribunal found that the denial of exemption was not free from doubt and that, on stay proceedings, the use of consumables with raw material did not by itself justify refusal of interim protection. Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the duty demand and penalty were therefore granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114749</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>