<?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>2015 (2) TMI 558 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256558</link>
    <description>Molasses had to be stored only in a storage place approved by the excise authorities, and storage in earthen pits and masonry tanks within the factory without such approval did not comply with the prescribed mode. Under Rule 47 and Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, excisable goods kept contrary to the approved storage arrangement, or not accounted for in the prescribed manner, became liable to duty. The Board&#039;s circular had withdrawn permission for such storage except as allowed by the rules, and the prior judicial view confirmed that removal from the place of production attracted duty. Central excise duty was therefore payable on the molasses, and the demand was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2015 18:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=376136" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (2) TMI 558 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256558</link>
      <description>Molasses had to be stored only in a storage place approved by the excise authorities, and storage in earthen pits and masonry tanks within the factory without such approval did not comply with the prescribed mode. Under Rule 47 and Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, excisable goods kept contrary to the approved storage arrangement, or not accounted for in the prescribed manner, became liable to duty. The Board&#039;s circular had withdrawn permission for such storage except as allowed by the rules, and the prior judicial view confirmed that removal from the place of production attracted duty. Central excise duty was therefore payable on the molasses, and the demand was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256558</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>