<?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 (11) TMI 704 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152334</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under Rule 25 was unsustainable due to the lack of necessary facts in the show-cause notice. As a result, the penalty of Rs. 22,000 was vacated, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant. The decision emphasized the importance of specifying essential details in the notice when invoking a penalty provision, in line with established case law principles.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Jun 2013 16:22:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=169372" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (11) TMI 704 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152334</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under Rule 25 was unsustainable due to the lack of necessary facts in the show-cause notice. As a result, the penalty of Rs. 22,000 was vacated, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant. The decision emphasized the importance of specifying essential details in the notice when invoking a penalty provision, in line with established case law principles.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152334</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>