<?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>1985 (5) TMI 225 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167431</link>
    <description>The text analyses whether excisable goods exported under bond under Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 remained liable to duty to the extent rebate was not available under Rule 12 and Notification No. 349/77. It treats Rules 9, 9A, 12, 13 and 14A as an integrated scheme: duty is the general rule before removal, export under bond permits removal without payment, and fiscal consequences arise on breach of export conditions. On that reasoning, the rebate restriction under Rule 12 was said to continue to apply even to export under bond, so duty was payable to the extent of the unrebated amount. The commentary records that the issue was resolved in favour of Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 May 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2014 14:52:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=371532" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (5) TMI 225 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167431</link>
      <description>The text analyses whether excisable goods exported under bond under Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 remained liable to duty to the extent rebate was not available under Rule 12 and Notification No. 349/77. It treats Rules 9, 9A, 12, 13 and 14A as an integrated scheme: duty is the general rule before removal, export under bond permits removal without payment, and fiscal consequences arise on breach of export conditions. On that reasoning, the rebate restriction under Rule 12 was said to continue to apply even to export under bond, so duty was payable to the extent of the unrebated amount. The commentary records that the issue was resolved in favour of Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 May 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167431</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>