<?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>2008 (2) TMI 705 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123371</link>
    <description>Where zinc skimming is not excisable, countervailing duty and additional duty cannot be imposed on the same goods. The Tribunal accepted that the absence of excisability negatives the levy of countervailing duty, and found no error in the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039; view. The result was that countervailing duty was not leviable on the goods in question, and the assessee succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Sep 2012 14:25:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160340" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (2) TMI 705 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123371</link>
      <description>Where zinc skimming is not excisable, countervailing duty and additional duty cannot be imposed on the same goods. The Tribunal accepted that the absence of excisability negatives the levy of countervailing duty, and found no error in the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039; view. The result was that countervailing duty was not leviable on the goods in question, and the assessee succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123371</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>