<?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>2016 (2) TMI 455 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271750</link>
    <description>The appeals were allowed by way of remand for further scrutiny as the Tribunal found that the appellant&#039;s compliance with the BIFR scheme could impact the waiver of penalty and interest. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were remanded to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision considering the subsequent developments. All issues were kept open, emphasizing a fair hearing opportunity for the Appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2016 14:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=416556" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 455 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271750</link>
      <description>The appeals were allowed by way of remand for further scrutiny as the Tribunal found that the appellant&#039;s compliance with the BIFR scheme could impact the waiver of penalty and interest. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were remanded to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision considering the subsequent developments. All issues were kept open, emphasizing a fair hearing opportunity for the Appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271750</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>