<?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>2006 (2) TMI 373 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117468</link>
    <description>The appellant, a manufacturer of fabrics and garments, claimed exemption under Notification No. 14/02-C.E. and 15/02-C.E. The Tribunal noted their willingness to pay duty at 12% despite believing they qualified for a Nil rate. The Tribunal emphasized conditions for exemption under the notifications, particularly regarding excise duty on specified raw materials. The case was remanded for reexamination to consider new arguments not previously raised, potentially making the appellant eligible for a concessional rate of 12%. This decision aimed to ensure procedural fairness and allow the appellant to present unaddressed provisions for consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Jun 2012 17:58:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154465" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (2) TMI 373 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117468</link>
      <description>The appellant, a manufacturer of fabrics and garments, claimed exemption under Notification No. 14/02-C.E. and 15/02-C.E. The Tribunal noted their willingness to pay duty at 12% despite believing they qualified for a Nil rate. The Tribunal emphasized conditions for exemption under the notifications, particularly regarding excise duty on specified raw materials. The case was remanded for reexamination to consider new arguments not previously raised, potentially making the appellant eligible for a concessional rate of 12%. This decision aimed to ensure procedural fairness and allow the appellant to present unaddressed provisions for consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117468</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>