<?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 (7) TMI 821 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124907</link>
    <description>The Tribunal granted the applicant&#039;s request to recall the Final Order to the extent of the leviability of penalty, citing the applicant&#039;s valid reason for their counsel&#039;s absence and the lack of a finding on penalty imposition in the original order. The Tribunal upheld the demand but set aside the penalty based on the divergent views prior to the decision of the Larger Bench.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2012 10:12:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=161843" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 821 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124907</link>
      <description>The Tribunal granted the applicant&#039;s request to recall the Final Order to the extent of the leviability of penalty, citing the applicant&#039;s valid reason for their counsel&#039;s absence and the lack of a finding on penalty imposition in the original order. The Tribunal upheld the demand but set aside the penalty based on the divergent views prior to the decision of the Larger Bench.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124907</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>