<?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>2005 (12) TMI 170 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54823</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the duty demand within the normal period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, finding no suppression of material facts. The Tribunal set aside the duty demand beyond the normal period as barred by limitation. As there was no contumacious conduct or suppression of facts, the penalty imposed was also set aside. The appeal was partly allowed based on these findings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Oct 2010 11:44:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=93300" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (12) TMI 170 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54823</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the duty demand within the normal period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, finding no suppression of material facts. The Tribunal set aside the duty demand beyond the normal period as barred by limitation. As there was no contumacious conduct or suppression of facts, the penalty imposed was also set aside. The appeal was partly allowed based on these findings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54823</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>