<?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 (3) TMI 839 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126287</link>
    <description>Under the compounded levy scheme, the option to pay duty under Rule 96ZP(3) operated prospectively only from valid exercise and communication under Rule 96ZP(4). Because the factory remained closed from 1 August 1997 to 17 November 1997 and the option was furnished only on 17 November 1997, duty could not be demanded for the earlier period. The demand for the period before 17 November 1997 was therefore unsustainable, and liability attached only from 18 November 1997.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2012 12:28:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163184" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (3) TMI 839 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126287</link>
      <description>Under the compounded levy scheme, the option to pay duty under Rule 96ZP(3) operated prospectively only from valid exercise and communication under Rule 96ZP(4). Because the factory remained closed from 1 August 1997 to 17 November 1997 and the option was furnished only on 17 November 1997, duty could not be demanded for the earlier period. The demand for the period before 17 November 1997 was therefore unsustainable, and liability attached only from 18 November 1997.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126287</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>