<?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 (8) TMI 607 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236315</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision that Filter Khaini Pouches manually packed into plastic pouches did not qualify as notified goods under the compounded levy scheme. The packing machines were excluded from annual capacity determination as the final packing was manual, aligning with the scheme&#039;s requirement for machine-packed pouches. The Tribunal affirmed that the product lacked marketability in its initial form and rejected the Revenue&#039;s appeals. The judgment clarified that manually packed pouches were not subject to the compounded levy scheme, and the packing machines were not considered for production capacity and duty calculation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Dec 2013 14:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=198722" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (8) TMI 607 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236315</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision that Filter Khaini Pouches manually packed into plastic pouches did not qualify as notified goods under the compounded levy scheme. The packing machines were excluded from annual capacity determination as the final packing was manual, aligning with the scheme&#039;s requirement for machine-packed pouches. The Tribunal affirmed that the product lacked marketability in its initial form and rejected the Revenue&#039;s appeals. The judgment clarified that manually packed pouches were not subject to the compounded levy scheme, and the packing machines were not considered for production capacity and duty calculation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236315</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>