<?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 (8) TMI 350 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35278</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellants, allowing their appeals for remission of duty for storage losses in sugar and molasses manufacturing. The rejection of the remission applications was set aside, emphasizing that the losses fell within the permissible limit and occurred due to unavoidable accidents before removal. The decision highlighted the importance of complying with circular guidelines and legal precedents in determining eligibility for remission of duty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73874" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 350 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35278</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellants, allowing their appeals for remission of duty for storage losses in sugar and molasses manufacturing. The rejection of the remission applications was set aside, emphasizing that the losses fell within the permissible limit and occurred due to unavoidable accidents before removal. The decision highlighted the importance of complying with circular guidelines and legal precedents in determining eligibility for remission of duty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35278</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>