<?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>2014 (3) TMI 661 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245209</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, manufacturers of pan masala, in a case concerning duty liability under the new scheme introduced from 1-7-2008. The appellants transitioned to the new scheme and sealed their packing machine on 9-7-2008, indicating discontinuation of manufacturing activity. The Tribunal held that duty payment was not required for the period before sealing the machine, rejecting the Revenue&#039;s claim for duty payment for July, 2008. The Tribunal also dismissed the imposition of penalties, finding that the appellants had complied with all necessary requirements. The appellants were directed to pay only the proportionate duty liability for the eight days before sealing the machine with interest, while other demanded liabilities were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Mar 2014 09:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=349501" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (3) TMI 661 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245209</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, manufacturers of pan masala, in a case concerning duty liability under the new scheme introduced from 1-7-2008. The appellants transitioned to the new scheme and sealed their packing machine on 9-7-2008, indicating discontinuation of manufacturing activity. The Tribunal held that duty payment was not required for the period before sealing the machine, rejecting the Revenue&#039;s claim for duty payment for July, 2008. The Tribunal also dismissed the imposition of penalties, finding that the appellants had complied with all necessary requirements. The appellants were directed to pay only the proportionate duty liability for the eight days before sealing the machine with interest, while other demanded liabilities were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245209</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>