<?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>2022 (10) TMI 958 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429400</link>
    <description>For exemption under Notification No. 49/2003-CE, the date of commencement of commercial production was determined from contemporaneous documentary evidence rather than a departmental assumption. The record, including the Entrepreneur&#039;s Memorandum and Batch Packing Record, supported commencement on 12.06.2006, while the receipt of manufacturing ingredients only on 05.06.2006 was undisputed. The first batch was manufactured on 12.06.2006, approved later, and sold thereafter, and the Master Formula Record and Batch Manufacturing Record were insufficient to displace that evidence. On that basis, 12.06.2006 was treated as the relevant commencement date and the duty demand failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Oct 2022 09:14:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=694152" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (10) TMI 958 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429400</link>
      <description>For exemption under Notification No. 49/2003-CE, the date of commencement of commercial production was determined from contemporaneous documentary evidence rather than a departmental assumption. The record, including the Entrepreneur&#039;s Memorandum and Batch Packing Record, supported commencement on 12.06.2006, while the receipt of manufacturing ingredients only on 05.06.2006 was undisputed. The first batch was manufactured on 12.06.2006, approved later, and sold thereafter, and the Master Formula Record and Batch Manufacturing Record were insufficient to displace that evidence. On that basis, 12.06.2006 was treated as the relevant commencement date and the duty demand failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429400</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>