<?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 295 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218280</link>
    <description>The appellant&#039;s failure to inform the Jurisdictional Central Excise Officers in advance about the clearance of export consignments under self-sealing and self-certification procedure did not violate the provisions of Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.) under Rule 19. The penalty imposed under Rule 27 was overturned, and the appeal was granted, emphasizing adherence to the prescribed export procedure without the necessity of prior notification to the authorities.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Sep 2012 18:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=191652" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (11) TMI 295 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218280</link>
      <description>The appellant&#039;s failure to inform the Jurisdictional Central Excise Officers in advance about the clearance of export consignments under self-sealing and self-certification procedure did not violate the provisions of Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.) under Rule 19. The penalty imposed under Rule 27 was overturned, and the appeal was granted, emphasizing adherence to the prescribed export procedure without the necessity of prior notification to the authorities.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218280</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>