<?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>2006 (2) TMI 395 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117656</link>
    <description>A purchaser of an industrial unit was treated as having a strong prima facie case against recovery of central excise duty and penalty where no provision parallel to Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules existed in the Act or Rules to fasten such liability on the buyer after acquisition of the unit. On that basis, the Tribunal granted waiver of the entire pre-deposit of duty and penalty and allowed the stay petition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:09:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154653" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (2) TMI 395 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117656</link>
      <description>A purchaser of an industrial unit was treated as having a strong prima facie case against recovery of central excise duty and penalty where no provision parallel to Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules existed in the Act or Rules to fasten such liability on the buyer after acquisition of the unit. On that basis, the Tribunal granted waiver of the entire pre-deposit of duty and penalty and allowed the stay petition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117656</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>