<?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>2009 (2) TMI 618 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126002</link>
    <description>The appellate tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the Department&#039;s appeal. It was found that the charges in the show cause notice were not proven, and there was no obligation to include raw materials from trading activities in the manufacturing unit&#039;s register. The judgment clarified the treatment of raw materials in multiple premises and the application of rules in cases involving discrepancies in stock verification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2012 12:35:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162907" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (2) TMI 618 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126002</link>
      <description>The appellate tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the Department&#039;s appeal. It was found that the charges in the show cause notice were not proven, and there was no obligation to include raw materials from trading activities in the manufacturing unit&#039;s register. The judgment clarified the treatment of raw materials in multiple premises and the application of rules in cases involving discrepancies in stock verification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126002</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>