<?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>2006 (6) TMI 309 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119153</link>
    <description>The Tribunal granted relief to the appellants by dispensing with the pre-deposit condition of duty and penalties. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering manufacturing processes, statutory limitations, and burden of proof in excise duty cases. The demand for duty on repacked electrodes and excess flux consumption was found to lack evidence of clandestine activities and appeared to be beyond the limitation period, leading to the decision in favor of the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2012 13:40:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=156150" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (6) TMI 309 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119153</link>
      <description>The Tribunal granted relief to the appellants by dispensing with the pre-deposit condition of duty and penalties. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering manufacturing processes, statutory limitations, and burden of proof in excise duty cases. The demand for duty on repacked electrodes and excess flux consumption was found to lack evidence of clandestine activities and appeared to be beyond the limitation period, leading to the decision in favor of the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119153</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>