<?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 (11) TMI 238 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218223</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal in a case involving misuse of exemption under Notification No. 4/97-C.E. by a 100% EOU supplying yarn to a cooperative society. The duty demand was confirmed, but penalty dropped as the Respondents acted in good faith and promptly paid duty upon discovery. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision on eligibility for Notification No. 4/97-C.E. and lack of evidence for Notification No. 8/97-C.E., citing reliance on the cooperative society&#039;s letter and certification of indigenous raw material use by excise officers. Interest was deemed not leviable due to payment before relevant amendment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Sep 2012 18:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=191595" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (11) TMI 238 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218223</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal in a case involving misuse of exemption under Notification No. 4/97-C.E. by a 100% EOU supplying yarn to a cooperative society. The duty demand was confirmed, but penalty dropped as the Respondents acted in good faith and promptly paid duty upon discovery. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision on eligibility for Notification No. 4/97-C.E. and lack of evidence for Notification No. 8/97-C.E., citing reliance on the cooperative society&#039;s letter and certification of indigenous raw material use by excise officers. Interest was deemed not leviable due to payment before relevant amendment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218223</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>