<?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 (2) TMI 8 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354587</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the notice issued in 2011 was time-barred, following the precedent set by the Allahabad High Court, as there was no deliberate intent to evade duty. The decision focused on the limitation issue, setting aside penalties and duty demands due to the procedural aspect of time limitation, without addressing the substantive allegations of clandestine removal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Feb 2018 18:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=506835" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 8 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354587</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the notice issued in 2011 was time-barred, following the precedent set by the Allahabad High Court, as there was no deliberate intent to evade duty. The decision focused on the limitation issue, setting aside penalties and duty demands due to the procedural aspect of time limitation, without addressing the substantive allegations of clandestine removal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354587</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>