<?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 (12) TMI 274 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120368</link>
    <description>Interest under Rule 8(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was not leviable where NCCD had already been discharged within time through the Cenvat credit account and the later PLA debit was only a corrective step taken at the department&#039;s insistence. Rule 8(3) applies only when duty remains unpaid by the due date, and the circular treating NCCD as a duty of excise supported the assessee&#039;s bona fide view; on the same footing, penalty under Rule 25 was not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2012 18:22:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=157363" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (12) TMI 274 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120368</link>
      <description>Interest under Rule 8(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was not leviable where NCCD had already been discharged within time through the Cenvat credit account and the later PLA debit was only a corrective step taken at the department&#039;s insistence. Rule 8(3) applies only when duty remains unpaid by the due date, and the circular treating NCCD as a duty of excise supported the assessee&#039;s bona fide view; on the same footing, penalty under Rule 25 was not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120368</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>