<?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 (10) TMI 300 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120175</link>
    <description>The judgment upholds the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside the penalty imposed under Section 11AC, as the weight difference in CTD bars was not deemed as clandestine removal. The appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, and the cross objection is disposed of accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2012 13:27:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=157171" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (10) TMI 300 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120175</link>
      <description>The judgment upholds the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside the penalty imposed under Section 11AC, as the weight difference in CTD bars was not deemed as clandestine removal. The appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, and the cross objection is disposed of accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120175</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>