<?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 (11) TMI 550 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246295</link>
    <description>The Tribunal affirmed the duty liability on the appellants, cotton yarn manufacturers, for misdeclaration of goods and evasion of excise duty. The decision emphasized the importance of procedural objections raised in a timely manner and upheld the reliance on unchallenged statements of third-party buyers as evidence. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, highlighting the significance of procedural regularity and the evidentiary value of unchallenged statements in establishing duty liability in excise duty cases.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 20 Apr 2014 15:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=352916" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (11) TMI 550 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246295</link>
      <description>The Tribunal affirmed the duty liability on the appellants, cotton yarn manufacturers, for misdeclaration of goods and evasion of excise duty. The decision emphasized the importance of procedural objections raised in a timely manner and upheld the reliance on unchallenged statements of third-party buyers as evidence. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, highlighting the significance of procedural regularity and the evidentiary value of unchallenged statements in establishing duty liability in excise duty cases.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246295</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>