<?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>2005 (4) TMI 385 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115355</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) decision and allowed the appeal filed by M/s. U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. regarding the payment of Central Excise duty on levy sugar prices. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of elements in the show cause notice and the absence of a directive from the Supreme Court regarding duty payment, ruling in favor of the Appellant due to the statutory provisions and specific findings under the Central Excise Act. The Appellant was not liable to pay the demanded differential duty as the duty demand period exceeded the statutory limit and there was no legal basis for the demand following the Supreme Court order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 May 2012 13:31:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152354" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (4) TMI 385 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115355</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) decision and allowed the appeal filed by M/s. U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. regarding the payment of Central Excise duty on levy sugar prices. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of elements in the show cause notice and the absence of a directive from the Supreme Court regarding duty payment, ruling in favor of the Appellant due to the statutory provisions and specific findings under the Central Excise Act. The Appellant was not liable to pay the demanded differential duty as the duty demand period exceeded the statutory limit and there was no legal basis for the demand following the Supreme Court order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115355</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>