<?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 (9) TMI 766 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251740</link>
    <description>Gold ore could not be treated as &quot;any form of gold&quot; for the purpose of exemption under Serial No. 21 of Notification No. 5/2006-C.E., when read with the tariff scheme distinguishing gold in unwrought or semi-manufactured form under Chapter 71.08 from gold ore and concentrates under Chapter 26. On that prima facie reading, the exemption claim was weak on merits. The limitation issue was treated differently: because the record suggested more than one possible view and departmental correspondence supported deeper examination, invocation of the extended period of limitation was considered arguable at the stay stage. Conditional interim relief was therefore linked to partial pre-deposit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2014 09:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=365842" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (9) TMI 766 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251740</link>
      <description>Gold ore could not be treated as &quot;any form of gold&quot; for the purpose of exemption under Serial No. 21 of Notification No. 5/2006-C.E., when read with the tariff scheme distinguishing gold in unwrought or semi-manufactured form under Chapter 71.08 from gold ore and concentrates under Chapter 26. On that prima facie reading, the exemption claim was weak on merits. The limitation issue was treated differently: because the record suggested more than one possible view and departmental correspondence supported deeper examination, invocation of the extended period of limitation was considered arguable at the stay stage. Conditional interim relief was therefore linked to partial pre-deposit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251740</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>