<?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 (12) TMI 224 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53655</link>
    <description>CESTAT held that duty demands on advertisement charges and pre-revised clearances could not be sustained in remand proceedings because they were outside the show cause notice and earlier confirmed demand; those demands were set aside. Duty on inputs cleared as such after Modvat credit was upheld, with limitation rejected. Confiscation of engine and accessories was sustained, but the redemption fine was reduced as excessive. The valuation of cars was remanded for fresh determination in line with earlier directions on wholesale price and admissible deductions, and all penalties were set aside because they had been enhanced without proper fresh adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2010 14:54:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92132" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (12) TMI 224 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53655</link>
      <description>CESTAT held that duty demands on advertisement charges and pre-revised clearances could not be sustained in remand proceedings because they were outside the show cause notice and earlier confirmed demand; those demands were set aside. Duty on inputs cleared as such after Modvat credit was upheld, with limitation rejected. Confiscation of engine and accessories was sustained, but the redemption fine was reduced as excessive. The valuation of cars was remanded for fresh determination in line with earlier directions on wholesale price and admissible deductions, and all penalties were set aside because they had been enhanced without proper fresh adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53655</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>