<?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>2009 (12) TMI 380 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77653</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal for penalty enhancement and allowed the respondent&#039;s cross objection, directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to reconsider the plea regarding the duty demand confirmation on the shortage of Brown Sugar. The case was remanded for further evaluation based on the provisions of Section 35B(4) and Section 35E(4) of the Central Excise Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=115816" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (12) TMI 380 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77653</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal for penalty enhancement and allowed the respondent&#039;s cross objection, directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to reconsider the plea regarding the duty demand confirmation on the shortage of Brown Sugar. The case was remanded for further evaluation based on the provisions of Section 35B(4) and Section 35E(4) of the Central Excise Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77653</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>