<?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>1996 (4) TMI 299 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85621</link>
    <description>A time-barred duty demand could not be sustained or enforced as a voluntary payment once limitation had been found to bar recovery, and the demand was set aside. Penalty was also not justified because the dispute arose from genuine confusion over the interpretation of Notification No. 105/80, and the absence of a valid enforceable demand further undermined penalty. The demand and penalty were therefore annulled, and the appeal succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Aug 2011 12:20:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122688" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (4) TMI 299 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85621</link>
      <description>A time-barred duty demand could not be sustained or enforced as a voluntary payment once limitation had been found to bar recovery, and the demand was set aside. Penalty was also not justified because the dispute arose from genuine confusion over the interpretation of Notification No. 105/80, and the absence of a valid enforceable demand further undermined penalty. The demand and penalty were therefore annulled, and the appeal succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85621</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>