<?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 (5) TMI 657 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327676</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the penalty issue, reducing the penalty from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 2,000 in accordance with the amended Rule 15(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. However, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the interest demand period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, ruling that the demand for interest was not time-barred as the Show Cause Notice was issued within one year of the intimation given by the Appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=428303" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (5) TMI 657 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327676</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the penalty issue, reducing the penalty from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 2,000 in accordance with the amended Rule 15(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. However, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the interest demand period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, ruling that the demand for interest was not time-barred as the Show Cause Notice was issued within one year of the intimation given by the Appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327676</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>