<?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>2003 (10) TMI 517 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111605</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found that the discrepancies in production figures were due to clerical errors and not intentional suppression. As a result, the demand for duty, penalty, and interest under Sections 11AC and 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was set aside. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was overturned.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:54:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148621" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (10) TMI 517 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111605</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found that the discrepancies in production figures were due to clerical errors and not intentional suppression. As a result, the demand for duty, penalty, and interest under Sections 11AC and 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was set aside. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was overturned.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111605</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>