<?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 (7) TMI 1045 - CESTAT  ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363737</link>
    <description>Duty under the Pan Masala Packaging Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 applies to operating or installed machines, and the deeming fiction for a non-working machine operates only where installation is established. The seized pouch packing machines were found uninstalled, sealed, and not ready for production; panchnama and photographs showed no raw material, packaging material, or manufacturing activity. Broken seals alone did not prove installation or use for manufacture. On that basis, the demand of duty, confiscation of the machines, and penalty on the authorised signatory were not sustainable, and the order in favour of the assessee was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2018 06:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=527308" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 1045 - CESTAT  ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363737</link>
      <description>Duty under the Pan Masala Packaging Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 applies to operating or installed machines, and the deeming fiction for a non-working machine operates only where installation is established. The seized pouch packing machines were found uninstalled, sealed, and not ready for production; panchnama and photographs showed no raw material, packaging material, or manufacturing activity. Broken seals alone did not prove installation or use for manufacture. On that basis, the demand of duty, confiscation of the machines, and penalty on the authorised signatory were not sustainable, and the order in favour of the assessee was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363737</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>