<?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>2008 (2) TMI 686 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123343</link>
    <description>Proceedings for recovery of Modvat credit and penalty were unsustainable because they were founded on the Central Excise Rules, 1944 after those rules had been substituted by the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Tribunal held that action must be taken under the legally applicable regime, and the superseded rules could not support the show cause notice, demand, or penalty. On that basis, the notice was treated as bad in law and the impugned proceedings were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Sep 2017 09:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160312" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (2) TMI 686 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123343</link>
      <description>Proceedings for recovery of Modvat credit and penalty were unsustainable because they were founded on the Central Excise Rules, 1944 after those rules had been substituted by the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Tribunal held that action must be taken under the legally applicable regime, and the superseded rules could not support the show cause notice, demand, or penalty. On that basis, the notice was treated as bad in law and the impugned proceedings were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123343</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>