<?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 (4) TMI 313 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258431</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a plastic articles manufacturer, in a case involving duty demand on goods sold with a customer&#039;s brand/logo. The duty demand was deemed unreasonable as most goods were not manufactured by the appellant, leading to a waiver of pre-deposit requirements. The appellant&#039;s argument regarding their capacity to manufacture specific items was upheld, highlighting the lack of consideration by the authorities. The Tribunal also granted a stay application, providing relief from pre-deposit requirements pending the appeal hearing. Penalties imposed on the appellant and its partners were not explicitly addressed in the decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2015 06:00:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=381201" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (4) TMI 313 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258431</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a plastic articles manufacturer, in a case involving duty demand on goods sold with a customer&#039;s brand/logo. The duty demand was deemed unreasonable as most goods were not manufactured by the appellant, leading to a waiver of pre-deposit requirements. The appellant&#039;s argument regarding their capacity to manufacture specific items was upheld, highlighting the lack of consideration by the authorities. The Tribunal also granted a stay application, providing relief from pre-deposit requirements pending the appeal hearing. Penalties imposed on the appellant and its partners were not explicitly addressed in the decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258431</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>