<?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 (11) TMI 199 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3981</link>
    <description>Remission for loss of molasses stored in steel tanks was admissible where the loss was within the 2% storage-loss threshold recognised by the applicable Board circular. The lower authority had rejected the claim because the cause of loss was not satisfactorily explained, but that ground could not override the circular treatment of minor storage losses as condonable. The rejection of the remission application was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=43328" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (11) TMI 199 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3981</link>
      <description>Remission for loss of molasses stored in steel tanks was admissible where the loss was within the 2% storage-loss threshold recognised by the applicable Board circular. The lower authority had rejected the claim because the cause of loss was not satisfactorily explained, but that ground could not override the circular treatment of minor storage losses as condonable. The rejection of the remission application was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3981</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>