<?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>2018 (1) TMI 363 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353627</link>
    <description>Under the compounded levy scheme, where duty liability is re-quantified after remand and the assessee has already made a specific payment towards the same composite demand, that payment must be adjusted against the confirmed liability to ensure correct recovery. The document states that the appellant&#039;s payment of Rs. 3,50,000 was examined for adjustment against the duty confirmed for the relevant periods, and the adjustment was allowed because the demand itself was not disputed. Partial relief was therefore granted by directing that the earlier payment be credited towards the duty liability confirmed in the impugned order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Jan 2018 08:15:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=503639" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 363 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353627</link>
      <description>Under the compounded levy scheme, where duty liability is re-quantified after remand and the assessee has already made a specific payment towards the same composite demand, that payment must be adjusted against the confirmed liability to ensure correct recovery. The document states that the appellant&#039;s payment of Rs. 3,50,000 was examined for adjustment against the duty confirmed for the relevant periods, and the adjustment was allowed because the demand itself was not disputed. Partial relief was therefore granted by directing that the earlier payment be credited towards the duty liability confirmed in the impugned order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353627</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>