<?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 782 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154948</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI ruled in favor of the Revenue regarding the classification of goods under the Central Excise Tariff Schedule, aligning with the Supreme Court&#039;s decision. The Tribunal allowed the assessee to claim MODVAT/CENVAT Credit with valid duty-paying documents but did not impose a penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, due to the lack of grounds and intent to evade duty. The appeal was partly allowed, and no penalty was imposed on the respondent, concluding the matter.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Aug 2013 15:31:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171979" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (11) TMI 782 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154948</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI ruled in favor of the Revenue regarding the classification of goods under the Central Excise Tariff Schedule, aligning with the Supreme Court&#039;s decision. The Tribunal allowed the assessee to claim MODVAT/CENVAT Credit with valid duty-paying documents but did not impose a penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, due to the lack of grounds and intent to evade duty. The appeal was partly allowed, and no penalty was imposed on the respondent, concluding the matter.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154948</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>