<?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>2017 (6) TMI 272 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344001</link>
    <description>Under the compounded levy scheme for pan masala packing machines, Rule 10 permits proportionate abatement where production is suspended for a continuous period of fifteen days or more after due intimation and sealing of machines. Reading Rules 9 and 10 together, the assessee was not required to first pay the full monthly duty and then seek refund or adjustment; where the unit remained closed, duty could be computed only for the actual operating period. Any delay in discharge attracted interest, but not a requirement to pay the full month&#039;s duty upfront. The demand based on that incorrect assumption was unsustainable, and the confirmed duty demand and penalties could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Jul 2017 18:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=471087" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (6) TMI 272 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344001</link>
      <description>Under the compounded levy scheme for pan masala packing machines, Rule 10 permits proportionate abatement where production is suspended for a continuous period of fifteen days or more after due intimation and sealing of machines. Reading Rules 9 and 10 together, the assessee was not required to first pay the full monthly duty and then seek refund or adjustment; where the unit remained closed, duty could be computed only for the actual operating period. Any delay in discharge attracted interest, but not a requirement to pay the full month&#039;s duty upfront. The demand based on that incorrect assumption was unsustainable, and the confirmed duty demand and penalties could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344001</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>