<?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 (8) TMI 509 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114033</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found the confiscation of goods unjustified as the appellants were unaware of the manufacturer&#039;s ineligibility for SSI benefit. The penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs under Rule 209A was revoked due to the absence of mens rea. No decision was made on the redemption fine of Rs. 2000. The appeal was allowed, and the penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 May 2012 18:54:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151039" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (8) TMI 509 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114033</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found the confiscation of goods unjustified as the appellants were unaware of the manufacturer&#039;s ineligibility for SSI benefit. The penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs under Rule 209A was revoked due to the absence of mens rea. No decision was made on the redemption fine of Rs. 2000. The appeal was allowed, and the penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114033</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>