<?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 (10) TMI 301 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333281</link>
    <description>Education cess and Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Cess, if already paid pursuant to the earlier Assistant Commissioner&#039;s order, could not be demanded again through a fresh show cause notice. The operative point was that a subsequent demand for the same discharged liability is unsustainable when the amounts have already been deposited for the relevant period. On that basis, the fresh demand was held invalid and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Oct 2016 13:10:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=444206" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 301 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333281</link>
      <description>Education cess and Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Cess, if already paid pursuant to the earlier Assistant Commissioner&#039;s order, could not be demanded again through a fresh show cause notice. The operative point was that a subsequent demand for the same discharged liability is unsustainable when the amounts have already been deposited for the relevant period. On that basis, the fresh demand was held invalid and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333281</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>