<?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 (2) TMI 410 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110877</link>
    <description>The appellate tribunal allowed the appeal to the extent of confirming duty for specific issues and set aside the penalty due to the insignificance of the amount involved. The judgment clarified the assessment criteria based on MRP for ceramic tiles, addressed discrepancies in MRP values on cartons, and provided a nuanced analysis of different scenarios involving MRP declarations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 10:06:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147893" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (2) TMI 410 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110877</link>
      <description>The appellate tribunal allowed the appeal to the extent of confirming duty for specific issues and set aside the penalty due to the insignificance of the amount involved. The judgment clarified the assessment criteria based on MRP for ceramic tiles, addressed discrepancies in MRP values on cartons, and provided a nuanced analysis of different scenarios involving MRP declarations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110877</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>