<?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>2010 (4) TMI 466 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78310</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found in favor of the respondents in a case involving duty demand on DG sets. It was determined that the respondents had paid more duty than the credit taken on the DG sets, justifying no duty demand. Additionally, the Tribunal ruled that there was no basis for payment of interest or levy of penalty as the respondents had already paid higher amounts on the transaction value of the DG sets. The Department&#039;s appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld, concluding that no duty demand, interest payment, or penalty levy was warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Nov 2010 13:38:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=116434" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (4) TMI 466 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78310</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found in favor of the respondents in a case involving duty demand on DG sets. It was determined that the respondents had paid more duty than the credit taken on the DG sets, justifying no duty demand. Additionally, the Tribunal ruled that there was no basis for payment of interest or levy of penalty as the respondents had already paid higher amounts on the transaction value of the DG sets. The Department&#039;s appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld, concluding that no duty demand, interest payment, or penalty levy was warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78310</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>