<?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 (7) TMI 180 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261219</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling that the Commissioner (Appeals) exceeded jurisdiction by demanding a higher differential duty than specified in the show cause notice without issuing a corrigendum. The Court found the original demand based on available records justified, and the Department&#039;s revised demand unjustified. The Court favored the assessee, dismissing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal without costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2015 18:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=389407" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (7) TMI 180 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261219</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling that the Commissioner (Appeals) exceeded jurisdiction by demanding a higher differential duty than specified in the show cause notice without issuing a corrigendum. The Court found the original demand based on available records justified, and the Department&#039;s revised demand unjustified. The Court favored the assessee, dismissing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal without costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261219</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>