<?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 (7) TMI 403 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345291</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the second show cause notice demanding duty was not barred by limitation as it was based on distinct allegations and additional documents compared to the first notice. The first notice focused on duty demand for seized goods, while the second notice detailed clandestine removal activities. The Tribunal found the second notice legally issued within the statutory time limit, upholding the decision and dismissing the appeals.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Jul 2017 07:26:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=480994" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 403 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345291</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the second show cause notice demanding duty was not barred by limitation as it was based on distinct allegations and additional documents compared to the first notice. The first notice focused on duty demand for seized goods, while the second notice detailed clandestine removal activities. The Tribunal found the second notice legally issued within the statutory time limit, upholding the decision and dismissing the appeals.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345291</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>