<?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>2007 (3) TMI 133 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1970</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner&#039;s order demanding duty and penalties from two companies for manufacturing activity, emphasizing singular liability for duty on specific goods. The Tribunal rejected the joint manufacturing concept, highlighting that only one person can be charged duty on particular goods. The judgment underscored strict adherence to statutory provisions in tax matters and allowed the Department to issue fresh notices in accordance with the law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41348" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (3) TMI 133 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1970</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner&#039;s order demanding duty and penalties from two companies for manufacturing activity, emphasizing singular liability for duty on specific goods. The Tribunal rejected the joint manufacturing concept, highlighting that only one person can be charged duty on particular goods. The judgment underscored strict adherence to statutory provisions in tax matters and allowed the Department to issue fresh notices in accordance with the law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1970</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>