<?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>2010 (1) TMI 1070 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153961</link>
    <description>Duty demand on raw materials and consumables used to manufacture prawn seed cleared into DTA was disputed on the ground that the show cause notice targeted only the finished goods, while the appellant relied on an earlier Tribunal ruling and a BIFR order restraining coercive recovery during revival proceedings. The Department maintained that the notice expressly covered duty on duty-free inputs used in production. The Tribunal noted that the notice did include the input-based demand and that the BIFR order barred coercive action. Finding no effective rebuttal from the Revenue and accepting financial hardship arising from the unit&#039;s sick-company status, the Tribunal waived pre-deposit and stayed recovery pending disposal of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Aug 2013 11:47:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170995" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (1) TMI 1070 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153961</link>
      <description>Duty demand on raw materials and consumables used to manufacture prawn seed cleared into DTA was disputed on the ground that the show cause notice targeted only the finished goods, while the appellant relied on an earlier Tribunal ruling and a BIFR order restraining coercive recovery during revival proceedings. The Department maintained that the notice expressly covered duty on duty-free inputs used in production. The Tribunal noted that the notice did include the input-based demand and that the BIFR order barred coercive action. Finding no effective rebuttal from the Revenue and accepting financial hardship arising from the unit&#039;s sick-company status, the Tribunal waived pre-deposit and stayed recovery pending disposal of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153961</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>