<?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 (12) TMI 843 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336198</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the demand covered by the first show cause notice entirely, granting consequential relief. For the second period, the demand was to be recalculated, excluding the portion beyond the six-month time limit. The penalty imposed under the second notice was set aside based on the bar of limitation. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2017 13:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=451899" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 843 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336198</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the demand covered by the first show cause notice entirely, granting consequential relief. For the second period, the demand was to be recalculated, excluding the portion beyond the six-month time limit. The penalty imposed under the second notice was set aside based on the bar of limitation. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336198</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>