<?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>2016 (7) TMI 1104 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330506</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that the number of operating machines, not the declared machine speed, is crucial in determining deemed production and duty liability for manufacturing &#039;Gutka&#039;. The decision set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief, in accordance with the Capacity Determination Rules and a supporting CBEC Circular.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2017 18:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=436260" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (7) TMI 1104 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330506</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that the number of operating machines, not the declared machine speed, is crucial in determining deemed production and duty liability for manufacturing &#039;Gutka&#039;. The decision set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief, in accordance with the Capacity Determination Rules and a supporting CBEC Circular.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330506</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>