<?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 (8) TMI 343 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202886</link>
    <description>An SSI exemption notification requiring a written option before the first clearance and prohibiting withdrawal during the financial year was construed as not being breached merely because the manufacturer paid full duty on some clearances while claiming concessional duty on others. The Tribunal noted that the notification contained no term treating such full-duty payments as an opt-out from the exemption scheme, and the show cause notices did not allege any wrongful passing of credit or other specific violation. Reading the notification as a whole, it held that mere excess duty payment, without breach of an express condition, cannot defeat exemption entitlement. The demand and penalty were therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Apr 2011 07:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=176458" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (8) TMI 343 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202886</link>
      <description>An SSI exemption notification requiring a written option before the first clearance and prohibiting withdrawal during the financial year was construed as not being breached merely because the manufacturer paid full duty on some clearances while claiming concessional duty on others. The Tribunal noted that the notification contained no term treating such full-duty payments as an opt-out from the exemption scheme, and the show cause notices did not allege any wrongful passing of credit or other specific violation. Reading the notification as a whole, it held that mere excess duty payment, without breach of an express condition, cannot defeat exemption entitlement. The demand and penalty were therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202886</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>