<?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 338 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86463</link>
    <description>Notification No. 54/89 issued under Section 11C gave statutory relief where a generally prevalent practice of non-levy of duty had existed, so the duty for the relevant period was not required to be paid. On that basis, the confirmed duty demand ceased to survive and was no longer enforceable. As the demand itself could not stand after the notification, the penalty imposed on the appellants also could not be sustained and was liable to be set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:17:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123530" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (4) TMI 338 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86463</link>
      <description>Notification No. 54/89 issued under Section 11C gave statutory relief where a generally prevalent practice of non-levy of duty had existed, so the duty for the relevant period was not required to be paid. On that basis, the confirmed duty demand ceased to survive and was no longer enforceable. As the demand itself could not stand after the notification, the penalty imposed on the appellants also could not be sustained and was liable to be set aside.</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=86463</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>