<?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 (4) TMI 160 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221964</link>
    <description>Maintaining separate accounts for inputs used in goods cleared under two exemption notifications supported simultaneous availment of both benefits. The Board&#039;s circular dated 28-7-2004 was treated as clarifying that such separate accounting permits concurrent use of the notifications, and this created a strong prima facie case for the applicant. On that basis, pre-deposit of duty, interest and penalty was waived and recovery was stayed pending appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Apr 2013 17:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=195316" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (4) TMI 160 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221964</link>
      <description>Maintaining separate accounts for inputs used in goods cleared under two exemption notifications supported simultaneous availment of both benefits. The Board&#039;s circular dated 28-7-2004 was treated as clarifying that such separate accounting permits concurrent use of the notifications, and this created a strong prima facie case for the applicant. On that basis, pre-deposit of duty, interest and penalty was waived and recovery was stayed pending appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221964</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>