<?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>2002 (5) TMI 606 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104846</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, dismissing the penalty and ordering a re-computation of duty in line with the revised total capacity of 2.965 MT. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, emphasizing the importance of evidence and adherence to specified notice periods in duty determinations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2012 15:34:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141885" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (5) TMI 606 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104846</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, dismissing the penalty and ordering a re-computation of duty in line with the revised total capacity of 2.965 MT. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, emphasizing the importance of evidence and adherence to specified notice periods in duty determinations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104846</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>