<?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>2009 (6) TMI 713 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125503</link>
    <description>The judgment addressed the deduction of quantity discounts from assessable value, the applicability of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, and the justification for penalty imposition. It highlighted inconsistencies in the Commissioner&#039;s decisions and emphasized adherence to Tribunal orders. Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing the appeals and providing relief due to the lack of grounds for penalty imposition based on legal interpretation and previous Tribunal decisions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Apr 2018 17:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162417" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (6) TMI 713 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125503</link>
      <description>The judgment addressed the deduction of quantity discounts from assessable value, the applicability of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, and the justification for penalty imposition. It highlighted inconsistencies in the Commissioner&#039;s decisions and emphasized adherence to Tribunal orders. Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing the appeals and providing relief due to the lack of grounds for penalty imposition based on legal interpretation and previous Tribunal decisions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125503</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>