<?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>2001 (11) TMI 196 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51032</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled that the duty demands for the larger period were time-barred as the Revenue failed to provide grounds for extending the period beyond what was declared by the appellants. The penalty imposed was upheld, but the demands for the larger period were set aside, with instructions for the duty to be recalculated for a shorter timeframe.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:52:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89511" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (11) TMI 196 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51032</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled that the duty demands for the larger period were time-barred as the Revenue failed to provide grounds for extending the period beyond what was declared by the appellants. The penalty imposed was upheld, but the demands for the larger period were set aside, with instructions for the duty to be recalculated for a shorter timeframe.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51032</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>