<?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 (5) TMI 563 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123942</link>
    <description>Moulds sent to a job worker were treated as covered by the Board&#039;s supplementary central excise law manual, which stated that return within 180 days was exempted under clause (a) of sub-rule (5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. On that basis, non-return of the moulds within 180 days was not regarded as enough to require pre-deposit at the stay stage. The appellant was therefore granted waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery pending disposal of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Sep 2012 12:38:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160902" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (5) TMI 563 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123942</link>
      <description>Moulds sent to a job worker were treated as covered by the Board&#039;s supplementary central excise law manual, which stated that return within 180 days was exempted under clause (a) of sub-rule (5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. On that basis, non-return of the moulds within 180 days was not regarded as enough to require pre-deposit at the stay stage. The appellant was therefore granted waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery pending disposal of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123942</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>