<?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 393 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117654</link>
    <description>A stay application in an excise appeal concerned waiver of pre-deposit of confirmed duty and equal penalty where credit on transmission assemblies used in exempted tractor manufacture was denied. The appellant contended that it had already paid 8% of the sale price of the exempted tractors under Rule 57CC, and that this adjustment had been raised before the adjudicating authority but not examined. As no finding had been recorded on the claimed payment or its adjustment, the Tribunal considered it not to require immediate deposit of the full duty and penalty for hearing the appeal. The pre-deposit requirement was waived and the stay petition was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:50:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154651" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (2) TMI 393 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117654</link>
      <description>A stay application in an excise appeal concerned waiver of pre-deposit of confirmed duty and equal penalty where credit on transmission assemblies used in exempted tractor manufacture was denied. The appellant contended that it had already paid 8% of the sale price of the exempted tractors under Rule 57CC, and that this adjustment had been raised before the adjudicating authority but not examined. As no finding had been recorded on the claimed payment or its adjustment, the Tribunal considered it not to require immediate deposit of the full duty and penalty for hearing the appeal. The pre-deposit requirement was waived and the stay petition was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117654</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>