<?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>2010 (6) TMI 340 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201538</link>
    <description>The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand and penalties imposed on the respondent for non-payment of National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) on certain clearances. However, the Tribunal upheld the Revenue&#039;s appeal, holding the respondent liable for NCCD on goods cleared to job workers due to insufficient evidence of payment. The Tribunal also accepted the respondent&#039;s bona fide belief for not paying duty under a specific notification, setting aside the extended period invocation and penalties. The penalty on the Manager (Commercial) was overturned with the appeal upheld on merits, limiting the demand to the normal period and remanding for quantification within the normal limitation period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Jan 2011 15:15:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=175146" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (6) TMI 340 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201538</link>
      <description>The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand and penalties imposed on the respondent for non-payment of National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) on certain clearances. However, the Tribunal upheld the Revenue&#039;s appeal, holding the respondent liable for NCCD on goods cleared to job workers due to insufficient evidence of payment. The Tribunal also accepted the respondent&#039;s bona fide belief for not paying duty under a specific notification, setting aside the extended period invocation and penalties. The penalty on the Manager (Commercial) was overturned with the appeal upheld on merits, limiting the demand to the normal period and remanding for quantification within the normal limitation period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201538</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>