<?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 (9) TMI 441 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113080</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI confirmed demands of duty against the appellants for specific periods related to Liquified Sulphur Di-Oxide. Despite the appellants&#039; challenge citing a previous decision, the Tribunal granted waiver of 50% of the duty amounts. The appellants were directed to deposit the balance within 6 weeks and comply with specified deadlines. Waiver and stay were also granted for penalty amounts. The judgment reconciled conflicting decisions and legal arguments, providing clarity on the reasoning behind the partial waiver granted. Compliance directives were issued to the appellants regarding duty and penalty amounts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 May 2012 16:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150096" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (9) TMI 441 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113080</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI confirmed demands of duty against the appellants for specific periods related to Liquified Sulphur Di-Oxide. Despite the appellants&#039; challenge citing a previous decision, the Tribunal granted waiver of 50% of the duty amounts. The appellants were directed to deposit the balance within 6 weeks and comply with specified deadlines. Waiver and stay were also granted for penalty amounts. The judgment reconciled conflicting decisions and legal arguments, providing clarity on the reasoning behind the partial waiver granted. Compliance directives were issued to the appellants regarding duty and penalty amounts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113080</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>