<?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 (7) TMI 461 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112371</link>
    <description>Administrative instructions on small scale exemption treated firms with only some common partners as separately entitled to exemption; on the material described, clubbing of clearances was not justified, so the duty demand, penalties, confiscation, redemption fine and interest were unsustainable. The extended period of limitation also failed because the relevant facts were within the department&#039;s knowledge and verification reach.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:13:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=149387" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (7) TMI 461 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112371</link>
      <description>Administrative instructions on small scale exemption treated firms with only some common partners as separately entitled to exemption; on the material described, clubbing of clearances was not justified, so the duty demand, penalties, confiscation, redemption fine and interest were unsustainable. The extended period of limitation also failed because the relevant facts were within the department&#039;s knowledge and verification reach.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112371</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>