<?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 834 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125944</link>
    <description>The appeal was filed against the order upholding the demand for differential duty on Sulphuric Acid. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty but upheld the demand for interest. The Tribunal held that interest is a statutory liability, but penalty imposition was not justified. The interest liability was to be discharged after the appellant received intimation from the Department. The penalty imposed on the appellants was set aside, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2012 17:31:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162850" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 834 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125944</link>
      <description>The appeal was filed against the order upholding the demand for differential duty on Sulphuric Acid. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty but upheld the demand for interest. The Tribunal held that interest is a statutory liability, but penalty imposition was not justified. The interest liability was to be discharged after the appellant received intimation from the Department. The penalty imposed on the appellants was set aside, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125944</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>