<?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 (9) TMI 882 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332621</link>
    <description>The tribunal partially allowed the appeal, holding that collection charges should be included in the assessable value for excise duty. The demand notice issued beyond the normal period was deemed time-barred, setting aside the penalty. The tribunal upheld demands related to the normal period preceding the Show Cause Notice, directing re-quantification by the Range Superintendent. The decision stressed the significance of adhering to statutory limitations in issuing demand notices.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2017 12:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=441893" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 882 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332621</link>
      <description>The tribunal partially allowed the appeal, holding that collection charges should be included in the assessable value for excise duty. The demand notice issued beyond the normal period was deemed time-barred, setting aside the penalty. The tribunal upheld demands related to the normal period preceding the Show Cause Notice, directing re-quantification by the Range Superintendent. The decision stressed the significance of adhering to statutory limitations in issuing demand notices.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332621</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>