<?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 (12) TMI 643 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352374</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the differential duty liability on Road Marking Paints, rejecting the appellant&#039;s claim for SSI exemption due to opting for modvat credit. The imposition of interest under Section 11AB was set aside as the provisions were not in force during the disputed period, leading to a partial allowance of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Feb 2018 10:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=499591" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 643 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352374</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the differential duty liability on Road Marking Paints, rejecting the appellant&#039;s claim for SSI exemption due to opting for modvat credit. The imposition of interest under Section 11AB was set aside as the provisions were not in force during the disputed period, leading to a partial allowance of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352374</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>