<?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 (8) TMI 880 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365408</link>
    <description>Confirmed duty demand was sustained on the basis of material showing unaccounted clearances and the related investigation, while the penalty was restricted to the concessional level because the duty had already been deposited during investigation. The interest liability was to be computed and adjusted against the amount lying in deposit. The result was partial relief to the assessee through application of reduced penalty treatment, but the duty demand itself remained upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Aug 2018 09:21:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=530959" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (8) TMI 880 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365408</link>
      <description>Confirmed duty demand was sustained on the basis of material showing unaccounted clearances and the related investigation, while the penalty was restricted to the concessional level because the duty had already been deposited during investigation. The interest liability was to be computed and adjusted against the amount lying in deposit. The result was partial relief to the assessee through application of reduced penalty treatment, but the duty demand itself remained upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365408</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>