<?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>1995 (3) TMI 98 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44012</link>
    <description>Duty paid on intermediary treated paper and cotton fabric could be adjusted against duty on the final product under Notification No. 71/71-C.E. because the notification was intended to avoid double duty on specified inputs used in manufacture of rigid plastic boards, sheetings, sheets or films. Although Rule 56A procedure had not been complied with earlier, that lapse was treated as technical in the circumstances, since the assessee had disputed the levy on the intermediary product and could not realistically have followed the procedure before the dispute was resolved. The assessee was permitted to complete the Rule 56A requirements to the Department&#039;s satisfaction and avail the set-off benefit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2025 00:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82541" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (3) TMI 98 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44012</link>
      <description>Duty paid on intermediary treated paper and cotton fabric could be adjusted against duty on the final product under Notification No. 71/71-C.E. because the notification was intended to avoid double duty on specified inputs used in manufacture of rigid plastic boards, sheetings, sheets or films. Although Rule 56A procedure had not been complied with earlier, that lapse was treated as technical in the circumstances, since the assessee had disputed the levy on the intermediary product and could not realistically have followed the procedure before the dispute was resolved. The assessee was permitted to complete the Rule 56A requirements to the Department&#039;s satisfaction and avail the set-off benefit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44012</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>