<?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 (11) TMI 749 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253432</link>
    <description>The tribunal held that Rule 11(3)(ii) does not apply when multiple final products are manufactured from common inputs, with some remaining dutiable. Rule 6(1), (2), and (3) do not apply if the exempted products are exported under bond. The case was remanded for verification of the export status of the products during the disputed period to determine the applicability of Cenvat credit reversal and penalty. The impugned order was set aside for de novo adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Aug 2017 17:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=369329" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (11) TMI 749 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253432</link>
      <description>The tribunal held that Rule 11(3)(ii) does not apply when multiple final products are manufactured from common inputs, with some remaining dutiable. Rule 6(1), (2), and (3) do not apply if the exempted products are exported under bond. The case was remanded for verification of the export status of the products during the disputed period to determine the applicability of Cenvat credit reversal and penalty. The impugned order was set aside for de novo adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253432</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>