<?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 (5) TMI 155 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2704</link>
    <description>Where duty under the compounded levy scheme had already been fully paid before refixation of annual capacity, no further demand could be sustained once the refixed capacity showed a lower liability than the amount already deposited. The legal basis for additional recovery disappeared because no duty remained outstanding at the time of refixation. The note therefore records that further levy, interest, or penalty could not survive in the absence of any unpaid duty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=42060" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (5) TMI 155 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2704</link>
      <description>Where duty under the compounded levy scheme had already been fully paid before refixation of annual capacity, no further demand could be sustained once the refixed capacity showed a lower liability than the amount already deposited. The legal basis for additional recovery disappeared because no duty remained outstanding at the time of refixation. The note therefore records that further levy, interest, or penalty could not survive in the absence of any unpaid duty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2704</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>