<?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>2008 (11) TMI 191 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34231</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, remanding the case for re-examination of export obligations and Modvat credit availment, and directing consideration of duty payment on Heavy Melting Scrap (HMS) under Notification No. 83/90-Cus. The Commissioner&#039;s order for confiscation, duty recovery, and penalties was upheld, with a fine imposed on the appellant. The issue of Countervailing Duty (CVD) under Notification No. 44/93-C.E. was to be reconsidered, and the Tribunal differentiated the case from a Supreme Court decision, emphasizing the inapplicability of benefits under Notification No. 203/92 due to goods not falling under the DEEC licence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72857" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (11) TMI 191 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34231</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, remanding the case for re-examination of export obligations and Modvat credit availment, and directing consideration of duty payment on Heavy Melting Scrap (HMS) under Notification No. 83/90-Cus. The Commissioner&#039;s order for confiscation, duty recovery, and penalties was upheld, with a fine imposed on the appellant. The issue of Countervailing Duty (CVD) under Notification No. 44/93-C.E. was to be reconsidered, and the Tribunal differentiated the case from a Supreme Court decision, emphasizing the inapplicability of benefits under Notification No. 203/92 due to goods not falling under the DEEC licence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34231</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>