<?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>2014 (3) TMI 829 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245381</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed M/s. K.C. Alloys and Castings&#039; appeal, citing Revenue neutrality and the limitation period, setting aside the demand for additional duty. The Tribunal emphasized that duty paid by one unit benefiting another indicates Revenue neutrality, ruling out wilful evasion. As the duty was paid in 2001 and the notice issued in 2005, the demand was time-barred. Consequently, the Revenue&#039;s appeal against the dropped demand portion was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2014 06:26:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=349995" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (3) TMI 829 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245381</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed M/s. K.C. Alloys and Castings&#039; appeal, citing Revenue neutrality and the limitation period, setting aside the demand for additional duty. The Tribunal emphasized that duty paid by one unit benefiting another indicates Revenue neutrality, ruling out wilful evasion. As the duty was paid in 2001 and the notice issued in 2005, the demand was time-barred. Consequently, the Revenue&#039;s appeal against the dropped demand portion was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245381</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>