<?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 (5) TMI 786 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212245</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the duty confirmation and penalty imposed on the appellant for failing to obtain permission for a decrease in production capacity under the compounded levy scheme. The delay in granting permission was not held against the appellant as they had intimated the Revenue in advance. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of timely intimation and adherence to proper procedures in cases involving changes in production parameters.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Apr 2012 18:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=185658" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (5) TMI 786 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212245</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the duty confirmation and penalty imposed on the appellant for failing to obtain permission for a decrease in production capacity under the compounded levy scheme. The delay in granting permission was not held against the appellant as they had intimated the Revenue in advance. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of timely intimation and adherence to proper procedures in cases involving changes in production parameters.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212245</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>