<?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 (2) TMI 643 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207188</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the duty demand but found the extended limitation period inapplicable due to the absence of deliberate intent to evade duty. Penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 26 were set aside, and the case was remanded for re-quantification of the duty demand within the normal limitation period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Dec 2011 07:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=180668" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (2) TMI 643 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207188</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the duty demand but found the extended limitation period inapplicable due to the absence of deliberate intent to evade duty. Penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 26 were set aside, and the case was remanded for re-quantification of the duty demand within the normal limitation period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207188</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>