<?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>2004 (2) TMI 435 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110922</link>
    <description>Penalty was not warranted where the assessee opted for the Compounded Levy Scheme and filed the declaration with the Department under Rule 96ZNA, and it was not disputed that duty had been paid in excess; the penalty was set aside. The question of refund for excess duty was not decided on merits, and any such claim was left to be pursued through the statutory refund procedure prescribed by the Act and the Rules.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 12:13:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147938" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (2) TMI 435 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110922</link>
      <description>Penalty was not warranted where the assessee opted for the Compounded Levy Scheme and filed the declaration with the Department under Rule 96ZNA, and it was not disputed that duty had been paid in excess; the penalty was set aside. The question of refund for excess duty was not decided on merits, and any such claim was left to be pursued through the statutory refund procedure prescribed by the Act and the Rules.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110922</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>