<?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 419 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203397</link>
    <description>Amounts paid on clearances made before availing small scale exemption were treated as deposits with the Government, not as duty of excise, and were therefore available for adjustment against the duty ultimately payable. The Tribunal noted that although earlier precedent required first-day-of-financial-year clearances to be counted for aggregate value, the same line of authority and the Board&#039;s circular supported adjustment of pre-exemption payments. On that basis, where the assessee had already remained within the prescribed exemption limit, the demand could not be sustained on the approach adopted in the impugned order and was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 May 2011 19:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=176958" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (8) TMI 419 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203397</link>
      <description>Amounts paid on clearances made before availing small scale exemption were treated as deposits with the Government, not as duty of excise, and were therefore available for adjustment against the duty ultimately payable. The Tribunal noted that although earlier precedent required first-day-of-financial-year clearances to be counted for aggregate value, the same line of authority and the Board&#039;s circular supported adjustment of pre-exemption payments. On that basis, where the assessee had already remained within the prescribed exemption limit, the demand could not be sustained on the approach adopted in the impugned order and was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203397</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>