<?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 (5) TMI 1199 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360635</link>
    <description>The fourth proviso to Rule 9 of the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Rules, 2010 applies to both permanent discontinuation of an existing retail sale price during the month and commencement of production of a new retail sale price during the month, and the phrase &quot;during the month&quot; governs both situations. The terms &quot;permanently&quot; and &quot;new&quot; do not require that the goods were never manufactured earlier or can never be manufactured again. Because the factory remained closed for the relevant period, no production took place, and the machines were sealed and unsealed under departmental supervision, the refund benefit was available. Denial of the refund was held unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 20 May 2018 21:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=521023" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (5) TMI 1199 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360635</link>
      <description>The fourth proviso to Rule 9 of the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Rules, 2010 applies to both permanent discontinuation of an existing retail sale price during the month and commencement of production of a new retail sale price during the month, and the phrase &quot;during the month&quot; governs both situations. The terms &quot;permanently&quot; and &quot;new&quot; do not require that the goods were never manufactured earlier or can never be manufactured again. Because the factory remained closed for the relevant period, no production took place, and the machines were sealed and unsealed under departmental supervision, the refund benefit was available. Denial of the refund was held unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360635</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>