<?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 (4) TMI 1090 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358979</link>
    <description>A central excise demand and equal penalty were held unsustainable where the confirmation against the appellant rested entirely on an adjudication order against the Chennai unit that had already been set aside on limitation. Once the foundational order ceased to exist, the derivative demand could not survive, and the appellate confirmation was set aside. The result was that the demand and penalty failed with the collapse of the underlying basis for liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2018 06:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=517638" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 1090 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358979</link>
      <description>A central excise demand and equal penalty were held unsustainable where the confirmation against the appellant rested entirely on an adjudication order against the Chennai unit that had already been set aside on limitation. Once the foundational order ceased to exist, the derivative demand could not survive, and the appellate confirmation was set aside. The result was that the demand and penalty failed with the collapse of the underlying basis for liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358979</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>