<?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>2014 (3) TMI 1033 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179547</link>
    <description>Prima facie waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery may be justified where the duty dispute is revenue neutral and the ingredients for penalty are not established. The text notes that deferment of Cenvat credit, which allegedly increased exemption under Notification No. 56/2002-C.E., was offset by higher credit utilisation in other months, weakening any inference of undue exemption. It also states that the cost of corrugated boxes supplied free by the buyer did not prima facie form part of assessable value where the containers were treated as marketable as such. Penalty under Rule 26(1) was likewise not shown to arise on the available material.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2016 10:54:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=418912" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (3) TMI 1033 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179547</link>
      <description>Prima facie waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery may be justified where the duty dispute is revenue neutral and the ingredients for penalty are not established. The text notes that deferment of Cenvat credit, which allegedly increased exemption under Notification No. 56/2002-C.E., was offset by higher credit utilisation in other months, weakening any inference of undue exemption. It also states that the cost of corrugated boxes supplied free by the buyer did not prima facie form part of assessable value where the containers were treated as marketable as such. Penalty under Rule 26(1) was likewise not shown to arise on the available material.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179547</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>