<?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 (5) TMI 162 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259288</link>
    <description>Confiscation of plastic scrap and duty demand on partly finished plastic containers were held unsustainable where the scrap was treated as an intermediate product for recycling covered by Notification No. 67/95-CE, and the containers were merely shifted within the premises due to lack of space rather than cleared for sale; the confiscation and related duty demand were set aside. On the alleged shortage of plastic granules, the shortage finding was upheld, but the cenvat credit demand could not be sustained on a value-based duty computation and had to be re-quantified by reference to the credit actually availed on the disputed quantity. The penalty linked to that demand was also set aside and the matter remanded for limited re-determination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Jan 2016 12:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=383905" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (5) TMI 162 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259288</link>
      <description>Confiscation of plastic scrap and duty demand on partly finished plastic containers were held unsustainable where the scrap was treated as an intermediate product for recycling covered by Notification No. 67/95-CE, and the containers were merely shifted within the premises due to lack of space rather than cleared for sale; the confiscation and related duty demand were set aside. On the alleged shortage of plastic granules, the shortage finding was upheld, but the cenvat credit demand could not be sustained on a value-based duty computation and had to be re-quantified by reference to the credit actually availed on the disputed quantity. The penalty linked to that demand was also set aside and the matter remanded for limited re-determination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259288</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>