<?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 482 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111200</link>
    <description>An earlier tribunal order allowing the companies&#039; appeals against penalty was recalled because it had proceeded on a mistaken factual assumption about the show cause notice. On re-examination, the notice was found to contain a proposal for imposition of penalties on both companies, so the basis for the earlier disposal failed. The recalled order therefore could not stand, and the appeals were directed to be heard afresh.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2012 18:05:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148216" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (3) TMI 482 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111200</link>
      <description>An earlier tribunal order allowing the companies&#039; appeals against penalty was recalled because it had proceeded on a mistaken factual assumption about the show cause notice. On re-examination, the notice was found to contain a proposal for imposition of penalties on both companies, so the basis for the earlier disposal failed. The recalled order therefore could not stand, and the appeals were directed to be heard afresh.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111200</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>