<?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 (7) TMI 778 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363470</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the belated filing of the mandatory declaration did not disqualify the appellants from availing the exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE. It was determined that the extended period for demanding duty could not be invoked as there was no suppression of facts by the appellants. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2018 06:12:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=526775" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 778 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363470</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the belated filing of the mandatory declaration did not disqualify the appellants from availing the exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE. It was determined that the extended period for demanding duty could not be invoked as there was no suppression of facts by the appellants. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363470</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>