<?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 1230 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355809</link>
    <description>The appellate tribunal restricted the demand to the period with evidence, remanding the case for re-adjudication to re-quantify duty liability without reliance on advance files. The penalty under Section 11 AC was upheld, pending determination based on the revised duty liability in the re-adjudication process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Feb 2018 06:02:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=509641" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 1230 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355809</link>
      <description>The appellate tribunal restricted the demand to the period with evidence, remanding the case for re-adjudication to re-quantify duty liability without reliance on advance files. The penalty under Section 11 AC was upheld, pending determination based on the revised duty liability in the re-adjudication process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355809</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>