<?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>2019 (5) TMI 43 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379315</link>
    <description>The tribunal set aside the differential duty demand under Sec.11A, as the show cause notice was based on an old section and the transactions were at a transaction value with appointed distributors. The demand under Sec.11D was also set aside since distributors were not liable to pay duty. All demands under Sec.11A and Sec.11D, including interest and penalties, were overturned, and the appeals were allowed, leading to the impugned order being set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Feb 2020 11:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=569085" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (5) TMI 43 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379315</link>
      <description>The tribunal set aside the differential duty demand under Sec.11A, as the show cause notice was based on an old section and the transactions were at a transaction value with appointed distributors. The demand under Sec.11D was also set aside since distributors were not liable to pay duty. All demands under Sec.11A and Sec.11D, including interest and penalties, were overturned, and the appeals were allowed, leading to the impugned order being set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379315</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>