<?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>2001 (7) TMI 415 - CEGAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96457</link>
    <description>The Tribunal rejected the Revenue&#039;s Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application challenging the imposition of demand, fine, and penalty post-settlement under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 (KVSS). The Tribunal upheld the settlement under the KVSS, deeming the show cause notice withdrawn as the duty on seized goods had been paid before the notice and no penalty was imposed during the declaration. The judgment emphasized compliance with the KVSS provisions, concluding that the ROM application had no merit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:49:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133516" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (7) TMI 415 - CEGAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96457</link>
      <description>The Tribunal rejected the Revenue&#039;s Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application challenging the imposition of demand, fine, and penalty post-settlement under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 (KVSS). The Tribunal upheld the settlement under the KVSS, deeming the show cause notice withdrawn as the duty on seized goods had been paid before the notice and no penalty was imposed during the declaration. The judgment emphasized compliance with the KVSS provisions, concluding that the ROM application had no merit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96457</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>