<?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>2005 (6) TMI 135 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54250</link>
    <description>No duty demand arises merely because business units are hived off where capital goods remain physically within the same premises; a change in the approved arrangement does not itself constitute removal. Inputs, work in progress, semi-finished goods and finished goods routed within an integrated manufacturing setup do not require credit reversal where they are used in manufacture, moved for permitted job work and ultimately cleared on payment of duty. As no enforceable duty liability arose on these facts, the demands were unsustainable. Penalty could not survive without a substantive duty demand, and the limitation plea also had merit. The impugned demands and penalty were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Oct 2010 10:44:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92727" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (6) TMI 135 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54250</link>
      <description>No duty demand arises merely because business units are hived off where capital goods remain physically within the same premises; a change in the approved arrangement does not itself constitute removal. Inputs, work in progress, semi-finished goods and finished goods routed within an integrated manufacturing setup do not require credit reversal where they are used in manufacture, moved for permitted job work and ultimately cleared on payment of duty. As no enforceable duty liability arose on these facts, the demands were unsustainable. Penalty could not survive without a substantive duty demand, and the limitation plea also had merit. The impugned demands and penalty were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54250</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>