<?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 (8) TMI 344 - CESTAT  ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330960</link>
    <description>Under the Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules, where a factory remains closed or resumes operations only for part of a month, duty may be computed on a pro rata basis for the actual operating days if the statutory conditions for closure and recommencement are satisfied. The Tribunal applied the monthly duty scheme with the abatement provisions in Rule 9 and followed prior precedent to hold that non-payment of full monthly duty upfront does not by itself defeat proportionate abatement. On that basis, the demand for differential duty, interest and penalties was found unsustainable and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Aug 2016 16:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=437765" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (8) TMI 344 - CESTAT  ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330960</link>
      <description>Under the Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules, where a factory remains closed or resumes operations only for part of a month, duty may be computed on a pro rata basis for the actual operating days if the statutory conditions for closure and recommencement are satisfied. The Tribunal applied the monthly duty scheme with the abatement provisions in Rule 9 and followed prior precedent to hold that non-payment of full monthly duty upfront does not by itself defeat proportionate abatement. On that basis, the demand for differential duty, interest and penalties was found unsustainable and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330960</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>