<?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 480 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116244</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the duty confirmation based on the initial ACP fixation by the Commissioner, rejecting the appellants&#039; request to consider the subsequently revised ACP for duty calculation. The appellants were ordered to deposit the full duty amount within a specified timeframe, emphasizing the finality and binding nature of the original ACP determination. The penalty recovery was stayed during the appeal process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Jun 2012 12:27:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153242" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (4) TMI 480 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116244</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the duty confirmation based on the initial ACP fixation by the Commissioner, rejecting the appellants&#039; request to consider the subsequently revised ACP for duty calculation. The appellants were ordered to deposit the full duty amount within a specified timeframe, emphasizing the finality and binding nature of the original ACP determination. The penalty recovery was stayed during the appeal process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116244</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>