<?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 (10) TMI 1546 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266271</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD upheld the demand of duty for certain show cause notices, citing prior decisions supported by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal found that the demand of duty for notices from February 2001 to November 2002 had been settled by the Supreme Court&#039;s decision. However, it deemed the confirmation of duty demand, interest, and penalties for notices from June and March 1997 as unsustainable due to lack of notice of hearing. The matter concerning the 1997 notices was remanded for fresh adjudication, while the appeal was disposed of with a mix of upheld and set-aside demands based on procedural irregularities.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Oct 2015 11:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=402217" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 1546 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266271</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD upheld the demand of duty for certain show cause notices, citing prior decisions supported by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal found that the demand of duty for notices from February 2001 to November 2002 had been settled by the Supreme Court&#039;s decision. However, it deemed the confirmation of duty demand, interest, and penalties for notices from June and March 1997 as unsustainable due to lack of notice of hearing. The matter concerning the 1997 notices was remanded for fresh adjudication, while the appeal was disposed of with a mix of upheld and set-aside demands based on procedural irregularities.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266271</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>