<?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 (6) TMI 440 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112309</link>
    <description>The appellate tribunal set aside the duty demand of Rs. 74,490 and penalty of Rs. 10,000 imposed on the appellants for an alleged shortage of piezos. The tribunal found the demand unsustainable as it did not consider breakage during manufacturing or verify the broken piezos in stock. It concluded that the demand lacked a proper basis and verification process, leading to the appeal being allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:50:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=149325" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (6) TMI 440 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112309</link>
      <description>The appellate tribunal set aside the duty demand of Rs. 74,490 and penalty of Rs. 10,000 imposed on the appellants for an alleged shortage of piezos. The tribunal found the demand unsustainable as it did not consider breakage during manufacturing or verify the broken piezos in stock. It concluded that the demand lacked a proper basis and verification process, leading to the appeal being allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112309</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>