<?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 (2) TMI 674 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102970</link>
    <description>An approved classification list did not permit retrospective confirmation of excise demand under Section 11A for the six months preceding the show cause notice. The Commissioner (Appeals)&#039; view was supported by the Supreme Court decision relied on in the order, and the demand for the earlier period was therefore held impermissible on the facts. The Revenue&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:27:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140016" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (2) TMI 674 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102970</link>
      <description>An approved classification list did not permit retrospective confirmation of excise demand under Section 11A for the six months preceding the show cause notice. The Commissioner (Appeals)&#039; view was supported by the Supreme Court decision relied on in the order, and the demand for the earlier period was therefore held impermissible on the facts. The Revenue&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102970</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>