<?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>2023 (6) TMI 493 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438919</link>
    <description>Rule 10 of the 2010 Rules allows abatement of duty when a factory does not produce the notified goods during a continuous period of fifteen days or more, subject to prescribed conditions. The text states that the relevant remand was limited to verifying the actual closure period, and the Principal Commissioner found on departmental sealing and unsealing records, as well as the show cause notice, that the factory had remained closed for at least fifteen continuous days in each month. On that factual basis, the legal consequence under rule 10 followed, and the demand could not be sustained because abatement could not be denied on a narrow reading of the remand direction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Jun 2023 09:10:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=716317" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (6) TMI 493 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438919</link>
      <description>Rule 10 of the 2010 Rules allows abatement of duty when a factory does not produce the notified goods during a continuous period of fifteen days or more, subject to prescribed conditions. The text states that the relevant remand was limited to verifying the actual closure period, and the Principal Commissioner found on departmental sealing and unsealing records, as well as the show cause notice, that the factory had remained closed for at least fifteen continuous days in each month. On that factual basis, the legal consequence under rule 10 followed, and the demand could not be sustained because abatement could not be denied on a narrow reading of the remand direction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438919</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>