<?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 (8) TMI 921 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128204</link>
    <description>The Tribunal granted waiver of pre-deposit and stayed the recovery of interest demanded under Section 11AA by the Commissioner. The decision was based on procedural irregularities, inconsistencies in applying Sections 11AA and 11AB, and the absence of a valid determination of duty under Section 11A at the time of payment. The Tribunal found the Commissioner&#039;s reliance on Section 11AA throughout the dispute, despite its limited applicability, raised concerns about the legality and consistency of the proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:08:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165075" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 921 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128204</link>
      <description>The Tribunal granted waiver of pre-deposit and stayed the recovery of interest demanded under Section 11AA by the Commissioner. The decision was based on procedural irregularities, inconsistencies in applying Sections 11AA and 11AB, and the absence of a valid determination of duty under Section 11A at the time of payment. The Tribunal found the Commissioner&#039;s reliance on Section 11AA throughout the dispute, despite its limited applicability, raised concerns about the legality and consistency of the proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128204</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>