<?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>2009 (9) TMI 266 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75837</link>
    <description>Where an assessee had wrongly availed Cenvat credit but reversed it and informed the department, the article notes that the demand was treated as time-barred because the show-cause notice was issued beyond one year. It also records that, in the absence of mala fide intention, penalties were found unsustainable on the facts. The discussion therefore concludes that the demand, interest and penalties were not sustainable, and the revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=114086" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (9) TMI 266 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75837</link>
      <description>Where an assessee had wrongly availed Cenvat credit but reversed it and informed the department, the article notes that the demand was treated as time-barred because the show-cause notice was issued beyond one year. It also records that, in the absence of mala fide intention, penalties were found unsustainable on the facts. The discussion therefore concludes that the demand, interest and penalties were not sustainable, and the revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75837</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>