<?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 456 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121553</link>
    <description>CENVAT credit reversed before the show cause notice, with interest also paid, so interest under Section 11AB and penalty under Rule 13 were not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the authorities recorded no finding of suppression, fraud, or willful misstatement, yet still confirmed demand and penalty on grounds broader than the notice. As the statutory ingredients for invoking Rule 13 were not established on the facts found, the interest and penalty were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:36:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=158547" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (4) TMI 456 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121553</link>
      <description>CENVAT credit reversed before the show cause notice, with interest also paid, so interest under Section 11AB and penalty under Rule 13 were not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the authorities recorded no finding of suppression, fraud, or willful misstatement, yet still confirmed demand and penalty on grounds broader than the notice. As the statutory ingredients for invoking Rule 13 were not established on the facts found, the interest and penalty were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121553</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>