<?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>2000 (11) TMI 267 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50378</link>
    <description>Rule 173Q penalty was held not sustainable against a 100% Export Oriented Unit because Rule 173A(2) expressly excluded such units from its operation. The duty demand and consequential penalties were set aside because there was no definite finding on extension of the export period by the Development Commissioner, and the Board&#039;s instructions had not been properly addressed before confirmation. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication in light of the export-period extension and the applicable instructions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Aug 2010 13:17:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88858" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (11) TMI 267 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50378</link>
      <description>Rule 173Q penalty was held not sustainable against a 100% Export Oriented Unit because Rule 173A(2) expressly excluded such units from its operation. The duty demand and consequential penalties were set aside because there was no definite finding on extension of the export period by the Development Commissioner, and the Board&#039;s instructions had not been properly addressed before confirmation. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication in light of the export-period extension and the applicable instructions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50378</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>