<?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 (9) TMI 650 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210949</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the demand of duty amounting to Rs.93,484 related to the utilization of CENVAT Credit for discharging SED &amp;amp; AED. Additionally, the demand of duty amounting to Rs.1,24,564 for under-valuation of goods was also set aside. However, the Tribunal upheld the demand for reversal of CENVAT Credit on inputs removed from the factory premises. The penalty imposed on the appellant was annulled, and the appellant was directed to pay interest on the differential amount of the confirmed demand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=184376" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (9) TMI 650 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210949</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the demand of duty amounting to Rs.93,484 related to the utilization of CENVAT Credit for discharging SED &amp;amp; AED. Additionally, the demand of duty amounting to Rs.1,24,564 for under-valuation of goods was also set aside. However, the Tribunal upheld the demand for reversal of CENVAT Credit on inputs removed from the factory premises. The penalty imposed on the appellant was annulled, and the appellant was directed to pay interest on the differential amount of the confirmed demand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210949</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>