<?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 (9) TMI 247 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53459</link>
    <description>Remission of duty for molasses loss was available under Rule 49 because the rule prescribed no time limit for seeking relief where loss arose from natural causes. The Board&#039;s direction to condone storage loss up to 2% governed the claim, and the admitted loss fell within that limit. The 24-hour reporting objection could not defeat remission where the loss was within the prescribed threshold, consistent with prior Tribunal view allowing condonation in similar cases.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:22:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91936" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (9) TMI 247 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53459</link>
      <description>Remission of duty for molasses loss was available under Rule 49 because the rule prescribed no time limit for seeking relief where loss arose from natural causes. The Board&#039;s direction to condone storage loss up to 2% governed the claim, and the admitted loss fell within that limit. The 24-hour reporting objection could not defeat remission where the loss was within the prescribed threshold, consistent with prior Tribunal view allowing condonation in similar cases.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53459</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>