<?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>2013 (1) TMI 325 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220219</link>
    <description>The cross objection filed by the assessee in support of penalty findings was successful, leading to its disposal without further contestation. The challenge against the show cause notice and penalty imposition was addressed, with the adjudicating authority confirming demands and penalties. The first appellate authority upheld duty and interest demands but reduced the penalty. The dispute over the inclusion of engraving charges in the final product&#039;s value was resolved in favor of the appellant, with the tribunal finding no merit in the inclusion. The appellant&#039;s bona fide belief regarding the non-inclusion of engraving charges was supported, and the extended period invocation was rejected solely on the grounds of limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2013 06:39:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=193588" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (1) TMI 325 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220219</link>
      <description>The cross objection filed by the assessee in support of penalty findings was successful, leading to its disposal without further contestation. The challenge against the show cause notice and penalty imposition was addressed, with the adjudicating authority confirming demands and penalties. The first appellate authority upheld duty and interest demands but reduced the penalty. The dispute over the inclusion of engraving charges in the final product&#039;s value was resolved in favor of the appellant, with the tribunal finding no merit in the inclusion. The appellant&#039;s bona fide belief regarding the non-inclusion of engraving charges was supported, and the extended period invocation was rejected solely on the grounds of limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220219</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>