<?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>1999 (3) TMI 223 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90922</link>
    <description>Recovery of the excise penalty was stayed at the interim stage because the duty demand had already been held time-barred and the appeal required detailed hearing. The tribunal noted the rival submissions on whether penalty could survive independently of the duty demand, but left that substantive question for final disposal. On a prima facie assessment, the appellants were found to have a case for interim protection, so coercive recovery was suspended pending hearing of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Oct 2011 15:56:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127984" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (3) TMI 223 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90922</link>
      <description>Recovery of the excise penalty was stayed at the interim stage because the duty demand had already been held time-barred and the appeal required detailed hearing. The tribunal noted the rival submissions on whether penalty could survive independently of the duty demand, but left that substantive question for final disposal. On a prima facie assessment, the appellants were found to have a case for interim protection, so coercive recovery was suspended pending hearing of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90922</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>