<?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 (8) TMI 383 - CESTAT,  MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119284</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that demands beyond the normal period were not time-barred as the assessments were deemed provisional during the disputed classification period. The impugned orders were set aside, and the Department&#039;s appeals were allowed in the cases of M/s. Shree &amp;amp; Co. and M/s. Maniyar Plast Ltd. The judgments were pronounced on 3-8-2006 by the Tribunal at CESTAT, Mumbai.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jul 2012 11:45:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=156281" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (8) TMI 383 - CESTAT,  MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119284</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that demands beyond the normal period were not time-barred as the assessments were deemed provisional during the disputed classification period. The impugned orders were set aside, and the Department&#039;s appeals were allowed in the cases of M/s. Shree &amp;amp; Co. and M/s. Maniyar Plast Ltd. The judgments were pronounced on 3-8-2006 by the Tribunal at CESTAT, Mumbai.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119284</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>