<?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>2000 (6) TMI 178 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93477</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Central Excise duty demand for the period before the show cause notice issuance, citing the retrospective effect of Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2000, which validated such demands even if the product classification had been approved earlier. The appellant&#039;s reliance on a Supreme Court decision was deemed ineffective in light of this provision, leading to the rejection of the appeal and affirming the validity of the differential duty demand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:31:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130538" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (6) TMI 178 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93477</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Central Excise duty demand for the period before the show cause notice issuance, citing the retrospective effect of Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2000, which validated such demands even if the product classification had been approved earlier. The appellant&#039;s reliance on a Supreme Court decision was deemed ineffective in light of this provision, leading to the rejection of the appeal and affirming the validity of the differential duty demand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93477</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>