<?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 (5) TMI 355 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111778</link>
    <description>Penalty under indirect tax law could not be sustained where the lower appellate authority had found the appellant&#039;s role was not established in any serious manner and the only lapse was non-production of retail sale invoices. In the absence of any legal provision authorising penalty merely for non-cooperation with the investigating officer, the basis for even the reduced penalty failed. The penalty was therefore set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:19:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148794" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (5) TMI 355 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111778</link>
      <description>Penalty under indirect tax law could not be sustained where the lower appellate authority had found the appellant&#039;s role was not established in any serious manner and the only lapse was non-production of retail sale invoices. In the absence of any legal provision authorising penalty merely for non-cooperation with the investigating officer, the basis for even the reduced penalty failed. The penalty was therefore set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111778</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>