<?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 501 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111450</link>
    <description>Interest was held not payable where the amount allegedly due had been reversed before the duty liability was formally determined, so the interest demand was set aside. Penalty was also found unwarranted where credit on inputs used in fabricating M.S. tanks was taken under a bona fide misunderstanding about its availability, so the penalty was set aside. The underlying denial of credit remained undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2012 15:57:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148466" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (2) TMI 501 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111450</link>
      <description>Interest was held not payable where the amount allegedly due had been reversed before the duty liability was formally determined, so the interest demand was set aside. Penalty was also found unwarranted where credit on inputs used in fabricating M.S. tanks was taken under a bona fide misunderstanding about its availability, so the penalty was set aside. The underlying denial of credit remained undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111450</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>