<?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 (5) TMI 560 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117858</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the appellants, setting aside the impugned order. The decision was based on legal flaws in the Show Cause Notice issuance, lack of conclusive evidence linking the appellants to manufacturing, and the non-applicability of Central Excise duty on repairing activities. The relief granted to the appellants was consequential to the dismissal of duty demand and penalty imposition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:19:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154855" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (5) TMI 560 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117858</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the appellants, setting aside the impugned order. The decision was based on legal flaws in the Show Cause Notice issuance, lack of conclusive evidence linking the appellants to manufacturing, and the non-applicability of Central Excise duty on repairing activities. The relief granted to the appellants was consequential to the dismissal of duty demand and penalty imposition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117858</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>