<?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 335 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259461</link>
    <description>Rule 8 of the Pan Masala Packing Machine (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 was construed to apply only where manufacture of goods with a new retail sale price begins during the month on an existing machine. Where the Form-I declaration had already disclosed, in advance, that the same packing machine would be used for pouches of two retail sale prices, that was not treated as commencement of a new retail sale price. The rule was read on its plain terms, and no additional fiction could be added to deem one declared machine as two. On that basis, the proviso was held prima facie inapplicable, and pre-deposit was waived with recovery stayed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2015 13:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=384433" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (5) TMI 335 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259461</link>
      <description>Rule 8 of the Pan Masala Packing Machine (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 was construed to apply only where manufacture of goods with a new retail sale price begins during the month on an existing machine. Where the Form-I declaration had already disclosed, in advance, that the same packing machine would be used for pouches of two retail sale prices, that was not treated as commencement of a new retail sale price. The rule was read on its plain terms, and no additional fiction could be added to deem one declared machine as two. On that basis, the proviso was held prima facie inapplicable, and pre-deposit was waived with recovery stayed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259461</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>