<?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 (11) TMI 346 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117325</link>
    <description>Waste paper was treated as a possible unconventional raw material for concessional paper duty under the relevant exemption notifications, but the entitlement could not be denied merely on test reports where chemical and microscopic methods were not reliable for determining pulp composition. The Board&#039;s circulars required physical supervision and account verification, and the record indicated that the prescribed accounts had been maintained and periodically checked by the department. Prior Tribunal decisions and Board instructions on waste paper were not properly considered, so findings based only on test reports and alleged discrepancies were not sustainable without fresh examination of the circulars, precedents and evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2012 17:42:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154322" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (11) TMI 346 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117325</link>
      <description>Waste paper was treated as a possible unconventional raw material for concessional paper duty under the relevant exemption notifications, but the entitlement could not be denied merely on test reports where chemical and microscopic methods were not reliable for determining pulp composition. The Board&#039;s circulars required physical supervision and account verification, and the record indicated that the prescribed accounts had been maintained and periodically checked by the department. Prior Tribunal decisions and Board instructions on waste paper were not properly considered, so findings based only on test reports and alleged discrepancies were not sustainable without fresh examination of the circulars, precedents and evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117325</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>