<?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 (11) TMI 1190 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240013</link>
    <description>Use of ARE-3 forms for clearances to a 100% EOU supported the Revenue&#039;s position that the transactions were &#039;as such&#039; sales. On that material, the appellant did not establish a prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest and penalty. The tribunal therefore required a part-deposit as a condition for further consideration of the dispute.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 24 Nov 2013 23:26:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=336866" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (11) TMI 1190 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240013</link>
      <description>Use of ARE-3 forms for clearances to a 100% EOU supported the Revenue&#039;s position that the transactions were &#039;as such&#039; sales. On that material, the appellant did not establish a prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest and penalty. The tribunal therefore required a part-deposit as a condition for further consideration of the dispute.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240013</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>