<?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>2007 (4) TMI 740 - CESTAT, New Delhi.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198722</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, considered an application for waiver of duty pre-deposit of Rs. 22.49 lakhs, with Rs. 10 lakhs already deposited. The issue centered on the denial of the benefit of Notification No.63/95-CE for goods supplied to the Ministry of Defence. The applicant argued that goods were supplied to M/s. Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. for further use in Ministry of Defence goods, supported by evidence. The Tribunal found the evidence compelling, waiving the remaining duty and penalties. However, due to missing evidence before lower authorities, the order was set aside for a fresh decision with a hearing opportunity. The appeal was disposed of through remand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Feb 2018 18:44:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=508006" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (4) TMI 740 - CESTAT, New Delhi.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198722</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, considered an application for waiver of duty pre-deposit of Rs. 22.49 lakhs, with Rs. 10 lakhs already deposited. The issue centered on the denial of the benefit of Notification No.63/95-CE for goods supplied to the Ministry of Defence. The applicant argued that goods were supplied to M/s. Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. for further use in Ministry of Defence goods, supported by evidence. The Tribunal found the evidence compelling, waiving the remaining duty and penalties. However, due to missing evidence before lower authorities, the order was set aside for a fresh decision with a hearing opportunity. The appeal was disposed of through remand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198722</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>