<?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 (2) TMI 1036 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339336</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found that the appellant&#039;s actions did not align with the provisions of notification No. 67/95-CE, as they sold tools and dies to customers without discharging duty, rendering the notification inapplicable. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner&#039;s decision regarding the inapplicability of the exemption under the notification to the tools and dies sold. Additionally, the Tribunal justified the invocation of the extended period for demanding central excise duty due to the appellant&#039;s lack of disclosure on certain actions. Penalties were adjusted, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly, modifying the Commissioner&#039;s order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Feb 2018 15:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=459647" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 1036 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339336</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found that the appellant&#039;s actions did not align with the provisions of notification No. 67/95-CE, as they sold tools and dies to customers without discharging duty, rendering the notification inapplicable. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner&#039;s decision regarding the inapplicability of the exemption under the notification to the tools and dies sold. Additionally, the Tribunal justified the invocation of the extended period for demanding central excise duty due to the appellant&#039;s lack of disclosure on certain actions. Penalties were adjusted, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly, modifying the Commissioner&#039;s order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339336</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>