<?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>2004 (3) TMI 182 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52826</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld duty demands related to the appellant&#039;s failure to pay the differential duty on enhanced prices due to a price variation clause and receiving additional consideration from customers. The penalty was reduced to Rs. 5,000, and the matter was remanded for recalculating duty after considering loading and unloading expenses as part of transportation charges.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Oct 2010 10:07:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91303" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (3) TMI 182 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52826</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld duty demands related to the appellant&#039;s failure to pay the differential duty on enhanced prices due to a price variation clause and receiving additional consideration from customers. The penalty was reduced to Rs. 5,000, and the matter was remanded for recalculating duty after considering loading and unloading expenses as part of transportation charges.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52826</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>