<?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 (9) TMI 583 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237151</link>
    <description>Eligibility for the compounded levy scheme for processed textile fabrics depended on the original investment in plant and machinery and exclusive use of a hot-air stenter. The Tribunal held that the plant valuation had to be based on original invoice value after correcting computational errors, excluding excise duty credit and consumables such as printing screens; on that basis, the investment stayed below the Rs. 3 crore limit. It further held that possession of open-air stenters took the processor outside Rule 96ZNA and the notification, because the scheme applied only to units operating exclusively with a hot-air stenter. The appeal therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Sep 2013 11:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=199558" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (9) TMI 583 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237151</link>
      <description>Eligibility for the compounded levy scheme for processed textile fabrics depended on the original investment in plant and machinery and exclusive use of a hot-air stenter. The Tribunal held that the plant valuation had to be based on original invoice value after correcting computational errors, excluding excise duty credit and consumables such as printing screens; on that basis, the investment stayed below the Rs. 3 crore limit. It further held that possession of open-air stenters took the processor outside Rule 96ZNA and the notification, because the scheme applied only to units operating exclusively with a hot-air stenter. The appeal therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237151</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>