<?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 (2) TMI 666 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115913</link>
    <description>The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision against the appellant for availing credit based on forged documents, leading to allegations of inadmissible credit, penalties, and potential confiscation. The appellant contested the show cause notice&#039;s time bar and denied knowledge of the fraudulent documents. The Tribunal remanded the case due to a procedural irregularity in adjudication authority, emphasizing the importance of procedural correctness in legal proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Jun 2012 12:18:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152911" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 666 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115913</link>
      <description>The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision against the appellant for availing credit based on forged documents, leading to allegations of inadmissible credit, penalties, and potential confiscation. The appellant contested the show cause notice&#039;s time bar and denied knowledge of the fraudulent documents. The Tribunal remanded the case due to a procedural irregularity in adjudication authority, emphasizing the importance of procedural correctness in legal proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115913</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>