<?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>2005 (6) TMI 366 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115555</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of excess goods found in the factory premises, reducing the redemption fine. However, it ruled in favor of the appellant regarding the duty demand for goods at the transporter&#039;s premises, finding insufficient evidence linking the goods to the manufacturing activities. The Tribunal also set aside personal penalties imposed on individuals, concluding in favor of the appellant on the duty demand confirmation and penalties imposition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 May 2012 18:40:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152554" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (6) TMI 366 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115555</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of excess goods found in the factory premises, reducing the redemption fine. However, it ruled in favor of the appellant regarding the duty demand for goods at the transporter&#039;s premises, finding insufficient evidence linking the goods to the manufacturing activities. The Tribunal also set aside personal penalties imposed on individuals, concluding in favor of the appellant on the duty demand confirmation and penalties imposition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115555</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>