<?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>2007 (1) TMI 50 - CESTAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1477</link>
    <description>Returned defective gears processed only for rectification and ultimately treated as rejects sold as scrap did not amount to manufacture under Rule 16, so duty credit reversal was justified and the duty demand was sustained. However, penalty was unwarranted because the facts did not show failure to account for inputs or removal of inputs without payment of duty, so the penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40888" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (1) TMI 50 - CESTAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1477</link>
      <description>Returned defective gears processed only for rectification and ultimately treated as rejects sold as scrap did not amount to manufacture under Rule 16, so duty credit reversal was justified and the duty demand was sustained. However, penalty was unwarranted because the facts did not show failure to account for inputs or removal of inputs without payment of duty, so the penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1477</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>