<?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 (12) TMI 1155 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269851</link>
    <description>Explanation II to Notification No. 14/2002-C.E. treats textile yarn or fabrics as duty paid even without duty-paying documents, and the Tribunal followed the larger Bench view that this deemed-paid treatment can extend to processed man-made fabrics received from the market. On that construction, exemption under Sr. No. 16, read with Condition No. 5, could not be denied merely because duty was not shown to have been paid on the unprocessed fabrics. The Tribunal reasoned that a contrary interpretation would make the explanation redundant. The exemption claim was therefore rejected on the facts considered, and the orders granting relief were set aside in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2015 10:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=410098" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (12) TMI 1155 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269851</link>
      <description>Explanation II to Notification No. 14/2002-C.E. treats textile yarn or fabrics as duty paid even without duty-paying documents, and the Tribunal followed the larger Bench view that this deemed-paid treatment can extend to processed man-made fabrics received from the market. On that construction, exemption under Sr. No. 16, read with Condition No. 5, could not be denied merely because duty was not shown to have been paid on the unprocessed fabrics. The Tribunal reasoned that a contrary interpretation would make the explanation redundant. The exemption claim was therefore rejected on the facts considered, and the orders granting relief were set aside in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269851</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>