<?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 (11) TMI 1471 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268662</link>
    <description>Prima facie waiver of pre-deposit was justified where the duty demands on finished goods stock at debonding, used catalyst, and DTA clearances of pyridine residue were found unsustainable or time-barred. The stock demand was treated as covered by an earlier order already implemented by the Department, so the issue could not be reopened by reclassifying work-in-progress as finished goods. The catalyst demand was prima facie defective because it rested on a ground not alleged in the show cause notice and lacked supporting material. The pyridine residue demand was also prima facie untenable because Foreign Trade Policy import restrictions could not be applied to DTA clearances, and disclosure in ER-2 returns negatived extended limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2015 14:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=407011" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 1471 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268662</link>
      <description>Prima facie waiver of pre-deposit was justified where the duty demands on finished goods stock at debonding, used catalyst, and DTA clearances of pyridine residue were found unsustainable or time-barred. The stock demand was treated as covered by an earlier order already implemented by the Department, so the issue could not be reopened by reclassifying work-in-progress as finished goods. The catalyst demand was prima facie defective because it rested on a ground not alleged in the show cause notice and lacked supporting material. The pyridine residue demand was also prima facie untenable because Foreign Trade Policy import restrictions could not be applied to DTA clearances, and disclosure in ER-2 returns negatived extended limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268662</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>