<?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 (11) TMI 218 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369875</link>
    <description>Excisable goods manufactured before an assessee opted for the compounded levy scheme but cleared afterwards are chargeable to duty at the rate prevailing on the date of clearance. The fact that the goods remained in stock when the scheme was adopted did not justify departure from that settled rule, and the cited Supreme Court decisions were treated as controlling. Duty paid on clearance under the compounded levy scheme was therefore proper, and no differential duty was payable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2018 11:26:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=540739" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (11) TMI 218 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369875</link>
      <description>Excisable goods manufactured before an assessee opted for the compounded levy scheme but cleared afterwards are chargeable to duty at the rate prevailing on the date of clearance. The fact that the goods remained in stock when the scheme was adopted did not justify departure from that settled rule, and the cited Supreme Court decisions were treated as controlling. Duty paid on clearance under the compounded levy scheme was therefore proper, and no differential duty was payable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369875</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>