<?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 300 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206010</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal of one appellant entirely, setting aside the impugned order, and allowed the appeals of the other appellants on the grounds of limitation and penalty. The matters were remanded for re-quantification of the demand within the limitation period, treating the value as cum duty price. All appeals were disposed of accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2011 10:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=179509" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (8) TMI 300 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206010</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal of one appellant entirely, setting aside the impugned order, and allowed the appeals of the other appellants on the grounds of limitation and penalty. The matters were remanded for re-quantification of the demand within the limitation period, treating the value as cum duty price. All appeals were disposed of accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206010</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>