<?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>2008 (3) TMI 100 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4632</link>
    <description>The appeal was dismissed as the goods were found to be Furnace Oil and not subject to additional duty. The demand for duty on used capital goods lacked specific details in the show-cause notice, resulting in the rejection of the appeal. The Tribunal ruled that the lack of clarity on the nature of the goods led to the appeal&#039;s dismissal, as the Revenue failed to substantiate the duty demand on the goods described as Furnace Oil mixed with water.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=43973" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (3) TMI 100 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4632</link>
      <description>The appeal was dismissed as the goods were found to be Furnace Oil and not subject to additional duty. The demand for duty on used capital goods lacked specific details in the show-cause notice, resulting in the rejection of the appeal. The Tribunal ruled that the lack of clarity on the nature of the goods led to the appeal&#039;s dismissal, as the Revenue failed to substantiate the duty demand on the goods described as Furnace Oil mixed with water.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4632</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>