<?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>2018 (2) TMI 1174 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355753</link>
    <description>Under the Pan Masala Packing Machine (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008, interest was examined only in relation to delayed duty payment for a month in which the packing machine was not fully operating. The reasoning treated a sealed or uninstalled machine as not operating for the relevant period, and relied on earlier Tribunal rulings applying the same rules. On that basis, payment of duty after the due date in circumstances of partial operation did not justify levy of interest as demanded by the revenue. Interest on the alleged delayed payment was therefore held not leviable, and the demand was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Feb 2018 08:35:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=509534" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 1174 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355753</link>
      <description>Under the Pan Masala Packing Machine (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008, interest was examined only in relation to delayed duty payment for a month in which the packing machine was not fully operating. The reasoning treated a sealed or uninstalled machine as not operating for the relevant period, and relied on earlier Tribunal rulings applying the same rules. On that basis, payment of duty after the due date in circumstances of partial operation did not justify levy of interest as demanded by the revenue. Interest on the alleged delayed payment was therefore held not leviable, and the demand was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355753</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>