<?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>2007 (4) TMI 439 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121416</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, ruled in favor of the pharmaceutical company in a case involving demands of Central Excise duty on finished goods and reversal of credit on inputs. The Tribunal found that the authorities&#039; conclusion regarding the expiration of permission for the laboratory was unfounded, as there was no material evidence supporting it. The company&#039;s compliance with quality control procedures and lack of malpractice detection post-1988 indicated the continuity of permission. As a result, the demands for duty, reversal of credit, and penalties were deemed erroneous and set aside in all three appeals.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:18:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=158410" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (4) TMI 439 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121416</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, ruled in favor of the pharmaceutical company in a case involving demands of Central Excise duty on finished goods and reversal of credit on inputs. The Tribunal found that the authorities&#039; conclusion regarding the expiration of permission for the laboratory was unfounded, as there was no material evidence supporting it. The company&#039;s compliance with quality control procedures and lack of malpractice detection post-1988 indicated the continuity of permission. As a result, the demands for duty, reversal of credit, and penalties were deemed erroneous and set aside in all three appeals.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121416</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>