<?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>2017 (1) TMI 1277 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338197</link>
    <description>The Tribunal confirmed the duty demand with interest against the main appellant but set aside the penalties imposed on all appellants. The judgment emphasized the complexity of interpreting sales tax deduction for central excise valuation during the relevant period and the necessity of a bona fide doubt for invoking the extended period of limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Feb 2017 10:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=456614" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 1277 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338197</link>
      <description>The Tribunal confirmed the duty demand with interest against the main appellant but set aside the penalties imposed on all appellants. The judgment emphasized the complexity of interpreting sales tax deduction for central excise valuation during the relevant period and the necessity of a bona fide doubt for invoking the extended period of limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338197</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>