<?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>2016 (12) TMI 1925 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470330</link>
    <description>A manufacturer clearing goods under a concessional-duty procedure without maintaining separate accounts was not liable to pay 6% of the value of those clearances. The demand based on non-maintenance of separate accounts was considered unsustainable because the issue had already been addressed in an earlier final order involving the same assessee. The analysis identifies the prior order as governing the liability question and supports non-collection of the prescribed percentage on the concessional-duty clearances.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 17:59:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=913218" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 1925 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470330</link>
      <description>A manufacturer clearing goods under a concessional-duty procedure without maintaining separate accounts was not liable to pay 6% of the value of those clearances. The demand based on non-maintenance of separate accounts was considered unsustainable because the issue had already been addressed in an earlier final order involving the same assessee. The analysis identifies the prior order as governing the liability question and supports non-collection of the prescribed percentage on the concessional-duty clearances.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470330</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>