<?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>2011 (2) TMI 611 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207009</link>
    <description>Under the compounded levy scheme for stainless steel pattas and pattis, excise duty was linked to cold rolling machines actually installed, not to an irrebuttable liability detached from their existence. Applying the provisions under Rule 15(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 and Notification No. 34/2001-C.E., read consistently with the earlier special procedure under Rules 96ZA to 96ZGG of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the text notes that dismantled machines which could no longer produce goods were not exigible to duty. On that basis, the demand could not stand and refund could not be refused on the department&#039;s stated ground.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Nov 2011 08:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=180490" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (2) TMI 611 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207009</link>
      <description>Under the compounded levy scheme for stainless steel pattas and pattis, excise duty was linked to cold rolling machines actually installed, not to an irrebuttable liability detached from their existence. Applying the provisions under Rule 15(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 and Notification No. 34/2001-C.E., read consistently with the earlier special procedure under Rules 96ZA to 96ZGG of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the text notes that dismantled machines which could no longer produce goods were not exigible to duty. On that basis, the demand could not stand and refund could not be refused on the department&#039;s stated ground.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207009</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>