<?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 (3) TMI 1090 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176733</link>
    <description>The appellant&#039;s claim for duty exemption under Notification No.49/03-CE was denied as the goods manufactured were deemed timber-based, not falling under non-timber forest produce, upholding the Commissioner&#039;s decision. Additionally, the appellant&#039;s claim under Notification No.50/03-CE was rejected due to the manufacturing unit&#039;s location Khasra Nos. not being included in the notification. The Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit the confirmed duty amount within twelve weeks, with waiver of pre-deposit of interest and penalty upon compliance, and stayed the recovery of the penalty pre-deposit by the Managing Director for the appeal hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Dec 2015 20:19:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=410869" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (3) TMI 1090 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176733</link>
      <description>The appellant&#039;s claim for duty exemption under Notification No.49/03-CE was denied as the goods manufactured were deemed timber-based, not falling under non-timber forest produce, upholding the Commissioner&#039;s decision. Additionally, the appellant&#039;s claim under Notification No.50/03-CE was rejected due to the manufacturing unit&#039;s location Khasra Nos. not being included in the notification. The Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit the confirmed duty amount within twelve weeks, with waiver of pre-deposit of interest and penalty upon compliance, and stayed the recovery of the penalty pre-deposit by the Managing Director for the appeal hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176733</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>