<?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>2012 (4) TMI 618 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177956</link>
    <description>Benefit of the relevant exemption notifications continued to apply to warehoused goods cleared after withdrawal of the warehousing facility, including clearances to the Indian Navy and a 100% export oriented unit, because the same issue had already been decided in the assessee&#039;s favour and affirmed by higher courts. On that settled position, the duty demand on those clearances was not sustainable and was set aside. By contrast, the valuation of depot clearances and the shortage-related demand had not been quantified, so those matters required fresh adjudication. The corresponding penalty issue was also remanded for reconsideration after hearing the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:52:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=414000" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (4) TMI 618 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177956</link>
      <description>Benefit of the relevant exemption notifications continued to apply to warehoused goods cleared after withdrawal of the warehousing facility, including clearances to the Indian Navy and a 100% export oriented unit, because the same issue had already been decided in the assessee&#039;s favour and affirmed by higher courts. On that settled position, the duty demand on those clearances was not sustainable and was set aside. By contrast, the valuation of depot clearances and the shortage-related demand had not been quantified, so those matters required fresh adjudication. The corresponding penalty issue was also remanded for reconsideration after hearing the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177956</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>