<?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>2001 (1) TMI 166 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50475</link>
    <description>Abatement of duty under the compounded levy scheme depended on strict compliance with the prescribed closure and restart procedure, including timely intimation of shutdown, immediate production of electricity meter readings and stock position, and prompt notice of recommencement. Failure to furnish the meter reading and closure intimation on the date of closure could not be cured later, so abatement was denied for the first closure period. Where the record showed that restart intimation, meter reading and closing stock were sent on the date production resumed, and the departmental stamp supported same-day receipt, the contrary finding of delayed receipt was ? No, removed. Abatement was therefore admissible for that later period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Aug 2010 10:11:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88955" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (1) TMI 166 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50475</link>
      <description>Abatement of duty under the compounded levy scheme depended on strict compliance with the prescribed closure and restart procedure, including timely intimation of shutdown, immediate production of electricity meter readings and stock position, and prompt notice of recommencement. Failure to furnish the meter reading and closure intimation on the date of closure could not be cured later, so abatement was denied for the first closure period. Where the record showed that restart intimation, meter reading and closing stock were sent on the date production resumed, and the departmental stamp supported same-day receipt, the contrary finding of delayed receipt was ? No, removed. Abatement was therefore admissible for that later period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50475</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>