<?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 (12) TMI 174 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219159</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appellant&#039;s claims for SSI exemption based on brand name ownership, financial hardship, and procedural errors in the stay order. The Tribunal upheld the duty demand and penalties, ruling that the appellant failed to provide evidence supporting their claims. The modification request for the stay order was denied, with the Tribunal extending the pre-deposit period by eight weeks.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2012 19:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=192529" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (12) TMI 174 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219159</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appellant&#039;s claims for SSI exemption based on brand name ownership, financial hardship, and procedural errors in the stay order. The Tribunal upheld the duty demand and penalties, ruling that the appellant failed to provide evidence supporting their claims. The modification request for the stay order was denied, with the Tribunal extending the pre-deposit period by eight weeks.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219159</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>