<?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 672 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241007</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai directed the applicant, a motor car manufacturer, to deposit Rs.25 lakhs within six weeks, waiving the balance duty of Rs.94,27,658 pending appeal. The dispute centered on the eligibility of &#039;hollow profiles&#039; and &#039;panels&#039; for CENVAT credit in the paint shop assembly. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a prima facie case, considering conflicting Supreme Court decisions on similar issues. Additionally, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant&#039;s request for an early hearing due to the monetary threshold. The decision balanced legal precedents with the applicant&#039;s claims, requiring a partial deposit while granting a waiver on the remaining dues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 15 Dec 2013 10:32:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=339385" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (12) TMI 672 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241007</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai directed the applicant, a motor car manufacturer, to deposit Rs.25 lakhs within six weeks, waiving the balance duty of Rs.94,27,658 pending appeal. The dispute centered on the eligibility of &#039;hollow profiles&#039; and &#039;panels&#039; for CENVAT credit in the paint shop assembly. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a prima facie case, considering conflicting Supreme Court decisions on similar issues. Additionally, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant&#039;s request for an early hearing due to the monetary threshold. The decision balanced legal precedents with the applicant&#039;s claims, requiring a partial deposit while granting a waiver on the remaining dues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241007</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>