<?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 (9) TMI 729 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124936</link>
    <description>The Tribunal granted the applicants&#039; request for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties amounting to Rs. 3,62,31,930 in a Central Excise Act case involving the manufacture of branded Gutka. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the Revenue&#039;s evidence, including missing consignee details and lack of panchnama copies. It noted procedural irregularities in witness statements and production capacity evidence. Relying on a previous Tribunal decision, the Tribunal sided with the applicants, waiving the pre-deposit and allowing stay petitions. The Revenue was directed to consider a pending High Court decision in a related case for further action.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2015 15:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=161870" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (9) TMI 729 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124936</link>
      <description>The Tribunal granted the applicants&#039; request for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties amounting to Rs. 3,62,31,930 in a Central Excise Act case involving the manufacture of branded Gutka. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the Revenue&#039;s evidence, including missing consignee details and lack of panchnama copies. It noted procedural irregularities in witness statements and production capacity evidence. Relying on a previous Tribunal decision, the Tribunal sided with the applicants, waiving the pre-deposit and allowing stay petitions. The Revenue was directed to consider a pending High Court decision in a related case for further action.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124936</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>