<?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>2009 (9) TMI 934 - CESTAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173421</link>
    <description>The appeal addressed the admissibility of cenvat credit of duty paid on tattoos used under a sales promotion scheme. The Tribunal upheld the duty demand within the normal limitation period but found no penalty imposable. The appellant&#039;s request to vacate the penalty was granted, emphasizing that the duty demand fell within the normal limitation period. The Tribunal ruled that the duty demand was justified, interest was upheld, and the penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2015 15:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=397396" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (9) TMI 934 - CESTAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173421</link>
      <description>The appeal addressed the admissibility of cenvat credit of duty paid on tattoos used under a sales promotion scheme. The Tribunal upheld the duty demand within the normal limitation period but found no penalty imposable. The appellant&#039;s request to vacate the penalty was granted, emphasizing that the duty demand fell within the normal limitation period. The Tribunal ruled that the duty demand was justified, interest was upheld, and the penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173421</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>