<?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 (11) TMI 750 - CESTAT  ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350871</link>
    <description>Rule 9 of the Tobacco Packing Machines Rules, 2010 governs payment of duty on notified goods, while Rule 10 allows abatement where production remains suspended for a continuous period of 15 days or more, subject to the prescribed intimation. On the admitted facts of partial factory closure in April 2012 and recommencement of production on 16 April 2012, harmonious reading of the two rules supported proportionate duty payment and suo motu abatement. The contemporaneous knowledge of the Revenue through the panchnama also supported compliance with the scheme. The view that Rule 10 was violated, and the consequential interest demand, was held unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Nov 2017 08:48:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=496167" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 750 - CESTAT  ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350871</link>
      <description>Rule 9 of the Tobacco Packing Machines Rules, 2010 governs payment of duty on notified goods, while Rule 10 allows abatement where production remains suspended for a continuous period of 15 days or more, subject to the prescribed intimation. On the admitted facts of partial factory closure in April 2012 and recommencement of production on 16 April 2012, harmonious reading of the two rules supported proportionate duty payment and suo motu abatement. The contemporaneous knowledge of the Revenue through the panchnama also supported compliance with the scheme. The view that Rule 10 was violated, and the consequential interest demand, was held unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350871</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>