<?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 (7) TMI 134 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91885</link>
    <description>Assessees opting for compounded levy under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules may seek redetermination of duty liability under Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act for the relevant period. Refusal of redetermination solely because of participation in the compounded levy scheme is not sustainable where applicable precedent permits such relief. Duty liability must consequently be redetermined in accordance with Section 3A(4).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:40:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128946" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (7) TMI 134 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91885</link>
      <description>Assessees opting for compounded levy under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules may seek redetermination of duty liability under Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act for the relevant period. Refusal of redetermination solely because of participation in the compounded levy scheme is not sustainable where applicable precedent permits such relief. Duty liability must consequently be redetermined in accordance with Section 3A(4).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91885</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>