<?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>2012 (10) TMI 107 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217154</link>
    <description>Aluminium circles cleared at an intermediate stage were treated as prima facie eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 34/2001-C.E., where the assessee acted under a bona fide belief that no duty was payable and departmental officers had directed payment under the notification. Although the notification required an application to the jurisdictional Superintendent, the procedure itself allowed the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner to permit availment even without strict compliance. On that basis, the Tribunal held that the benefit should not be denied merely for procedural non-compliance and allowed unconditional stay.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2012 18:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=190532" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (10) TMI 107 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217154</link>
      <description>Aluminium circles cleared at an intermediate stage were treated as prima facie eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 34/2001-C.E., where the assessee acted under a bona fide belief that no duty was payable and departmental officers had directed payment under the notification. Although the notification required an application to the jurisdictional Superintendent, the procedure itself allowed the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner to permit availment even without strict compliance. On that basis, the Tribunal held that the benefit should not be denied merely for procedural non-compliance and allowed unconditional stay.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217154</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>