<?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 (8) TMI 1162 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347104</link>
    <description>Clearances of forgings and dies made under a notification placing duty liability on the recipient were not treated as exempted goods for the purpose of Rule 57CC of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal applied earlier decisions and held that where the manufacturer clears goods on such a basis, the clearances do not attract the 8% reversal demand under Rule 57CC(1). The duty demand was therefore unsustainable and the appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Aug 2017 07:09:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=487200" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 1162 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347104</link>
      <description>Clearances of forgings and dies made under a notification placing duty liability on the recipient were not treated as exempted goods for the purpose of Rule 57CC of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal applied earlier decisions and held that where the manufacturer clears goods on such a basis, the clearances do not attract the 8% reversal demand under Rule 57CC(1). The duty demand was therefore unsustainable and the appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347104</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>