<?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>2013 (2) TMI 490 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221085</link>
    <description>The appellant, engaged in sugar and molasses manufacturing, sought a waiver of duty, interest, and penalty for bagasse clearance without duty payment. Revenue argued for liability due to common inputs used in dutiable and exempted goods, citing Indian Potash Ltd. case. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, following the precedent that as bagasse emerges during sugarcane crushing without separate accounts for inputs, the liability was unfounded. The decision underscores the need to differentiate inputs for various goods and handle residues like bagasse. By overturning the order and waiving pre-deposit, the Tribunal upheld fairness and legal principles.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2013 08:12:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=194442" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (2) TMI 490 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221085</link>
      <description>The appellant, engaged in sugar and molasses manufacturing, sought a waiver of duty, interest, and penalty for bagasse clearance without duty payment. Revenue argued for liability due to common inputs used in dutiable and exempted goods, citing Indian Potash Ltd. case. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, following the precedent that as bagasse emerges during sugarcane crushing without separate accounts for inputs, the liability was unfounded. The decision underscores the need to differentiate inputs for various goods and handle residues like bagasse. By overturning the order and waiving pre-deposit, the Tribunal upheld fairness and legal principles.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221085</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>