<?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>2011 (8) TMI 163 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205643</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the demand for a differential duty of Rs.81,224, except for one entry involving CENVAT Credit of Rs.28,293. The case was remanded for further review on this specific entry. The penalty imposed was to be equivalent to the duty, but the appellant could opt to pay 25% of the duty within 30 days to avoid a higher penalty. The issue regarding the correctness of the demand related to a specific invoice was also remanded for review, while the balance of the confirmed differential duty was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2019 15:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=179147" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (8) TMI 163 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205643</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the demand for a differential duty of Rs.81,224, except for one entry involving CENVAT Credit of Rs.28,293. The case was remanded for further review on this specific entry. The penalty imposed was to be equivalent to the duty, but the appellant could opt to pay 25% of the duty within 30 days to avoid a higher penalty. The issue regarding the correctness of the demand related to a specific invoice was also remanded for review, while the balance of the confirmed differential duty was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205643</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>