<?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>2009 (3) TMI 689 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125357</link>
    <description>The Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed, upholding the decisions of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the appellate authority. The demand of duty for the extended period was set aside as there was no willful suppression of facts by the assessee to evade duty payment. Additionally, since duty was paid before the show-cause notice, no interest could be levied under Section 11AB, and no penalty could be imposed under Section 11AC.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2012 12:22:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162276" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (3) TMI 689 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125357</link>
      <description>The Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed, upholding the decisions of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the appellate authority. The demand of duty for the extended period was set aside as there was no willful suppression of facts by the assessee to evade duty payment. Additionally, since duty was paid before the show-cause notice, no interest could be levied under Section 11AB, and no penalty could be imposed under Section 11AC.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125357</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>