<?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>2003 (8) TMI 536 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173633</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the demand for duty for the extended period, penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q, and the demand for interest under Section 11AB. The inclusion of the amortized cost of moulds in the assessable value was upheld. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the appeal by the assessee was partially allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2015 18:37:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=397915" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (8) TMI 536 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173633</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the demand for duty for the extended period, penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q, and the demand for interest under Section 11AB. The inclusion of the amortized cost of moulds in the assessable value was upheld. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the appeal by the assessee was partially allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173633</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>