<?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 (3) TMI 830 - CESTAT, ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357127</link>
    <description>Rule 10 of the Pan Masala Packing Machine (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 allows abatement where the packing machines remain continuously inoperative for not less than 15 days. The decisive test is continuous closure for the qualifying period, not whether the full period falls within one calendar month. Where duty for the month had already been deposited and the machines were closed for the required continuous period, abatement could be granted on a proportionate basis for the days falling within that month. The position that the closure covered only part of the month did not defeat entitlement. Abatement of duty was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2018 07:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=513276" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (3) TMI 830 - CESTAT, ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357127</link>
      <description>Rule 10 of the Pan Masala Packing Machine (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 allows abatement where the packing machines remain continuously inoperative for not less than 15 days. The decisive test is continuous closure for the qualifying period, not whether the full period falls within one calendar month. Where duty for the month had already been deposited and the machines were closed for the required continuous period, abatement could be granted on a proportionate basis for the days falling within that month. The position that the closure covered only part of the month did not defeat entitlement. Abatement of duty was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357127</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>