<?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 (8) TMI 111 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78645</link>
    <description>Under the compounded levy scheme, the Tribunal correctly confined waiver of pre-deposit to the disputed duty and interest after duty had already been paid, while treating the reduced penalty as concluded and recoverable because that determination had attained finality and was not challenged. The later stay proceedings did not reopen the penalty issue, and no error was shown in leaving the penalty outside the pre-deposit waiver. The challenge therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Dec 2010 22:49:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=116755" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (8) TMI 111 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78645</link>
      <description>Under the compounded levy scheme, the Tribunal correctly confined waiver of pre-deposit to the disputed duty and interest after duty had already been paid, while treating the reduced penalty as concluded and recoverable because that determination had attained finality and was not challenged. The later stay proceedings did not reopen the penalty issue, and no error was shown in leaving the penalty outside the pre-deposit waiver. The challenge therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78645</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>