<?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>2015 (1) TMI 542 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255343</link>
    <description>Appeals were held maintainable where an Assistant Commissioner communicated the Commissioner&#039;s decision, making the order appealable before the Tribunal. Penalty under Rule 96ZP of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 was found unsustainable because the rule had been omitted without a saving clause, proceedings commenced after omission could not survive, and the dispute arose from a bona fide interpretative controversy without mala fides. Interest was also not confirmed, as it was not treated as an automatic consequence of duty demand and the demand was not pursued within the limitation applicable to the statutory notice process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2015 18:44:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=373917" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (1) TMI 542 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255343</link>
      <description>Appeals were held maintainable where an Assistant Commissioner communicated the Commissioner&#039;s decision, making the order appealable before the Tribunal. Penalty under Rule 96ZP of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 was found unsustainable because the rule had been omitted without a saving clause, proceedings commenced after omission could not survive, and the dispute arose from a bona fide interpretative controversy without mala fides. Interest was also not confirmed, as it was not treated as an automatic consequence of duty demand and the demand was not pursued within the limitation applicable to the statutory notice process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255343</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>