<?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 (12) TMI 1168 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372399</link>
    <description>Condensate obtained during processing of natural gas was examined for oil cess liability under the Oil Industries (Development) Act, 1974. The text states that the charging provision applies only to the goods specified in the Schedule, and that condensate is a distinct product from crude oil under the statutory definition and petroleum rules; levy could not be extended by implication or by borrowing classifications from other enactments. It also notes that the demand was issued for a past period without invocation of the extended period, so it was time-barred under the applicable limitation framework. The stated result is that the cess demand could not be sustained on merits or limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2020 11:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=548480" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (12) TMI 1168 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372399</link>
      <description>Condensate obtained during processing of natural gas was examined for oil cess liability under the Oil Industries (Development) Act, 1974. The text states that the charging provision applies only to the goods specified in the Schedule, and that condensate is a distinct product from crude oil under the statutory definition and petroleum rules; levy could not be extended by implication or by borrowing classifications from other enactments. It also notes that the demand was issued for a past period without invocation of the extended period, so it was time-barred under the applicable limitation framework. The stated result is that the cess demand could not be sustained on merits or limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372399</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>