<?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>2004 (8) TMI 180 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53090</link>
    <description>A proviso to an exemption notification confined to finished products could not be extended by implication to exclude rejects, waste or scrap expressly covered by the principal notification, so the benefit remained available to tallow waste and bone waste cleared by a 100% export oriented undertaking in the domestic tariff area. Duty had also to be recomputed on a cum-duty basis where the sale price included duty, requiring re-quantification in favour of the assessee. Confirmation of duty already voluntarily deposited was not illegal merely because no separate fresh demand was raised in the show cause notice, as the notice itself referred to the deposit and duty liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Oct 2010 15:41:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91567" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (8) TMI 180 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53090</link>
      <description>A proviso to an exemption notification confined to finished products could not be extended by implication to exclude rejects, waste or scrap expressly covered by the principal notification, so the benefit remained available to tallow waste and bone waste cleared by a 100% export oriented undertaking in the domestic tariff area. Duty had also to be recomputed on a cum-duty basis where the sale price included duty, requiring re-quantification in favour of the assessee. Confirmation of duty already voluntarily deposited was not illegal merely because no separate fresh demand was raised in the show cause notice, as the notice itself referred to the deposit and duty liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53090</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>