<?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 (6) TMI 622 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260697</link>
    <description>The Department&#039;s appeal against an order regarding Excise Duty breakup figures in invoices was dismissed by the Tribunal and Commissioner. The assessee, a manufacturer of LPG Cylinders, was found not to have collected excess excise duty or violated Section 11D. The Tribunal emphasized the assessee&#039;s compliance with legal provisions and the unintentional nature of invoice errors. In a separate issue, the Department&#039;s duty demand under Section 11D was overturned by the Commissioner and Tribunal, as no excess duty was collected and clerical errors did not lead to overcharging. The High Court upheld this decision, citing the absence of intent to overcharge and confirming the Tribunal&#039;s ruling.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2015 15:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=388033" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (6) TMI 622 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260697</link>
      <description>The Department&#039;s appeal against an order regarding Excise Duty breakup figures in invoices was dismissed by the Tribunal and Commissioner. The assessee, a manufacturer of LPG Cylinders, was found not to have collected excess excise duty or violated Section 11D. The Tribunal emphasized the assessee&#039;s compliance with legal provisions and the unintentional nature of invoice errors. In a separate issue, the Department&#039;s duty demand under Section 11D was overturned by the Commissioner and Tribunal, as no excess duty was collected and clerical errors did not lead to overcharging. The High Court upheld this decision, citing the absence of intent to overcharge and confirming the Tribunal&#039;s ruling.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260697</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>