<?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 337 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333317</link>
    <description>Exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE was available on the basis of substantial expansion, as already held in the earlier round after remand. Because that exemption was applicable, the foundation for confirming duty liability failed. The consequent duty demand could not be sustained, and the related interest and penalty also fell with the demand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:10:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=444277" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 337 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333317</link>
      <description>Exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE was available on the basis of substantial expansion, as already held in the earlier round after remand. Because that exemption was applicable, the foundation for confirming duty liability failed. The consequent duty demand could not be sustained, and the related interest and penalty also fell with the demand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333317</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>