<?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 842 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352573</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the duty demand and interest liability for &quot;food supplements&quot; under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, based on correct classification post the 2005 tariff schedule change. The penalty under Section 11AC was set aside due to mitigating factors, including the appellant&#039;s small scale unit status and lack of clandestine activities.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Dec 2017 08:26:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=500152" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 842 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352573</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the duty demand and interest liability for &quot;food supplements&quot; under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, based on correct classification post the 2005 tariff schedule change. The penalty under Section 11AC was set aside due to mitigating factors, including the appellant&#039;s small scale unit status and lack of clandestine activities.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352573</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>