<?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>2012 (4) TMI 161 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211849</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal in a case involving the inclusion of excise duty on plastic crates in the assessable value of glass bottles. The Commissioner&#039;s decision to exclude the excise duty element from the cost of glass bottles led to dropping the demand and penalty. Despite confirming the duty amount, the Tribunal found discrepancies in penalty imposition and set aside the penalty imposed by the Commissioner under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Apr 2012 08:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=185266" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (4) TMI 161 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211849</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal in a case involving the inclusion of excise duty on plastic crates in the assessable value of glass bottles. The Commissioner&#039;s decision to exclude the excise duty element from the cost of glass bottles led to dropping the demand and penalty. Despite confirming the duty amount, the Tribunal found discrepancies in penalty imposition and set aside the penalty imposed by the Commissioner under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211849</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>