<?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 (8) TMI 297 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202487</link>
    <description>The appeal involved disputes over the recovery of amounts through debit notes for I.C. Diesel Engines and reimbursement of advertising expenses. The lower authorities confirmed the demand and penalty imposition under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant&#039;s claims regarding advertising charges were not substantiated, leading to inclusion in the assessable value. The Tribunal granted the appellant the option to deposit duty, interest, and a reduced penalty within 30 days, aligning with legal provisions. Ultimately, the confirmation of duty, penalty imposition, and extension of the deposit option were upheld in the case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Feb 2011 12:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=176067" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (8) TMI 297 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202487</link>
      <description>The appeal involved disputes over the recovery of amounts through debit notes for I.C. Diesel Engines and reimbursement of advertising expenses. The lower authorities confirmed the demand and penalty imposition under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant&#039;s claims regarding advertising charges were not substantiated, leading to inclusion in the assessable value. The Tribunal granted the appellant the option to deposit duty, interest, and a reduced penalty within 30 days, aligning with legal provisions. Ultimately, the confirmation of duty, penalty imposition, and extension of the deposit option were upheld in the case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202487</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>