<?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 (7) TMI 570 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215070</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore upheld the liability of interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act on the differential duty paid by the manufacturer. Relying on precedent cases like Commissioner vs. SKF India Ltd. and CCE vs. International Auto Ltd., the Tribunal affirmed that interest is leviable on the differential duty under Section 11AB. The judgment emphasizes the significance of adhering to excise duty regulations and the repercussions of not paying interest on differential duty amounts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2012 17:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=188460" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (7) TMI 570 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215070</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore upheld the liability of interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act on the differential duty paid by the manufacturer. Relying on precedent cases like Commissioner vs. SKF India Ltd. and CCE vs. International Auto Ltd., the Tribunal affirmed that interest is leviable on the differential duty under Section 11AB. The judgment emphasizes the significance of adhering to excise duty regulations and the repercussions of not paying interest on differential duty amounts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215070</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>