<?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 (9) TMI 1186 - JAMMU &amp; KASHMIR HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348429</link>
    <description>A show cause notice is valid where it clearly sets out the factual basis of the proposed duty demand, even if it does not expressly cite the withdrawing notification. The notices here alleged that yarn was entered at the spindle stage, duty was paid only at that stage, and the resulting doubled or multifold yarn was cleared without further duty; that was held sufficient to inform the assessee of the case to meet. Since the objection about omission of the notification was raised only in appeal and no prejudice was shown, the notices were not treated as vague or unintelligible. The duty demand, along with penalty and interest, was therefore sustained for the post-18.05.1995 period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2018 11:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=490194" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 1186 - JAMMU &amp; KASHMIR HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348429</link>
      <description>A show cause notice is valid where it clearly sets out the factual basis of the proposed duty demand, even if it does not expressly cite the withdrawing notification. The notices here alleged that yarn was entered at the spindle stage, duty was paid only at that stage, and the resulting doubled or multifold yarn was cleared without further duty; that was held sufficient to inform the assessee of the case to meet. Since the objection about omission of the notification was raised only in appeal and no prejudice was shown, the notices were not treated as vague or unintelligible. The duty demand, along with penalty and interest, was therefore sustained for the post-18.05.1995 period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348429</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>