<?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>2008 (1) TMI 750 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123317</link>
    <description>The Tribunal granted a waiver for the remaining duty and penalty balance to the appellants, who were engaged in manufacturing activities under the EHTP Scheme. The Tribunal recognized galvanization as a manufacturing process and upheld the appellants&#039; position that the exported parts underwent manufacturing processes with permission from the Development Commissioner. Emphasizing the substantial pre-deposit made and the permission granted, the Tribunal stayed the recovery pending appeal disposal, instructing the Revenue not to proceed with recovery even after the stay order expires. The decision was based on acknowledging the manufacturing processes undertaken and previous judicial precedents, with the matter scheduled for expedited final hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:50:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160287" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 750 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123317</link>
      <description>The Tribunal granted a waiver for the remaining duty and penalty balance to the appellants, who were engaged in manufacturing activities under the EHTP Scheme. The Tribunal recognized galvanization as a manufacturing process and upheld the appellants&#039; position that the exported parts underwent manufacturing processes with permission from the Development Commissioner. Emphasizing the substantial pre-deposit made and the permission granted, the Tribunal stayed the recovery pending appeal disposal, instructing the Revenue not to proceed with recovery even after the stay order expires. The decision was based on acknowledging the manufacturing processes undertaken and previous judicial precedents, with the matter scheduled for expedited final hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123317</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>