<?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>2003 (7) TMI 503 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108601</link>
    <description>Excess duty paid under one levy can be adjusted against short payment under another when the total duty discharged is not in dispute, and if that adjustment removes the alleged shortfall, no differential demand can be sustained. The Tribunal applied this adjustment principle to hold that excess payment under NCCD neutralised the short payment of additional excise duty, so the demand for the differential amount was unsustainable and the appeal succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2012 18:36:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145618" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (7) TMI 503 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108601</link>
      <description>Excess duty paid under one levy can be adjusted against short payment under another when the total duty discharged is not in dispute, and if that adjustment removes the alleged shortfall, no differential demand can be sustained. The Tribunal applied this adjustment principle to hold that excess payment under NCCD neutralised the short payment of additional excise duty, so the demand for the differential amount was unsustainable and the appeal succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108601</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>