<?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>2007 (7) TMI 218 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30205</link>
    <description>Under the compounded levy regime, duty can be fastened only on a furnace or mill shown to have manufactured notified goods, and a de novo adjudication cannot go beyond the remand direction without contrary evidence. Furnace No. 2 was held outside the duty net because the record showed manufacture only of non-notified goods, apart from the admitted demand for August 1997. The rolling mill was also held not liable, as RT-12 returns, invoices, classification declarations and the RG-1 register supported manufacture only of alloy steel bars and rods, with no credible material to the contrary. The impugned de novo orders were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=68862" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (7) TMI 218 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30205</link>
      <description>Under the compounded levy regime, duty can be fastened only on a furnace or mill shown to have manufactured notified goods, and a de novo adjudication cannot go beyond the remand direction without contrary evidence. Furnace No. 2 was held outside the duty net because the record showed manufacture only of non-notified goods, apart from the admitted demand for August 1997. The rolling mill was also held not liable, as RT-12 returns, invoices, classification declarations and the RG-1 register supported manufacture only of alloy steel bars and rods, with no credible material to the contrary. The impugned de novo orders were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30205</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>