<?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>2005 (9) TMI 492 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117115</link>
    <description>Actual commencement of transportation is required before a conveyance can be treated as used for carrying confiscable goods, so confiscation of the truck and the redemption fine on the vehicle were set aside. Where reprocessing amounts to manufacture, duty is payable on the subsequent clearance at the rate in force on the date of removal, and earlier payment can be adjusted only through the applicable credit or refund mechanism. On the facts, the duty demands on the disputed clearances were upheld because the record did not reliably establish the alleged prior reprocessing details. Penalty and redemption fines were reduced to the minimum prescribed because the duty incidence period was uncertain and the levy position was not fully clear.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Jun 2012 14:36:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154113" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (9) TMI 492 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117115</link>
      <description>Actual commencement of transportation is required before a conveyance can be treated as used for carrying confiscable goods, so confiscation of the truck and the redemption fine on the vehicle were set aside. Where reprocessing amounts to manufacture, duty is payable on the subsequent clearance at the rate in force on the date of removal, and earlier payment can be adjusted only through the applicable credit or refund mechanism. On the facts, the duty demands on the disputed clearances were upheld because the record did not reliably establish the alleged prior reprocessing details. Penalty and redemption fines were reduced to the minimum prescribed because the duty incidence period was uncertain and the levy position was not fully clear.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117115</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>