<?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 (6) TMI 477 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124242</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the order requiring duty payment for each consignment by debiting the current account, ruling in favor of the appellants. It found that the duty was paid on time and credit was used correctly, concluding that the forfeiture provision under Rule 8(3A) was inapplicable. The decision emphasized adherence to duty payment timelines and proper credit utilization under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2012 10:58:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=161196" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (6) TMI 477 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124242</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the order requiring duty payment for each consignment by debiting the current account, ruling in favor of the appellants. It found that the duty was paid on time and credit was used correctly, concluding that the forfeiture provision under Rule 8(3A) was inapplicable. The decision emphasized adherence to duty payment timelines and proper credit utilization under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124242</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>