<?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 (12) TMI 458 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240793</link>
    <description>In a pre-deposit dispute arising from the excisability of fatty acid, soap stock and spent earth in a refining process, the Court noted that the Tribunal had proceeded on a prima facie assessment and had relied on precedent treating a by-product such as palm stearin as dutiable under the Central Excise Tariff. It also held that the cited Mumbai Tribunal decision involved a different factual setting and did not justify immediate interference with the Tribunal&#039;s discretion. At the same time, the deposit amount was reduced to better balance the interests of both sides, leaving the substantive excisability issue for adjudication on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2014 14:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=338964" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (12) TMI 458 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240793</link>
      <description>In a pre-deposit dispute arising from the excisability of fatty acid, soap stock and spent earth in a refining process, the Court noted that the Tribunal had proceeded on a prima facie assessment and had relied on precedent treating a by-product such as palm stearin as dutiable under the Central Excise Tariff. It also held that the cited Mumbai Tribunal decision involved a different factual setting and did not justify immediate interference with the Tribunal&#039;s discretion. At the same time, the deposit amount was reduced to better balance the interests of both sides, leaving the substantive excisability issue for adjudication on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240793</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>