<?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 785 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155005</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, emphasizing the lack of evidence of intentional evasion of duty by the respondents. The decision highlighted the importance of proving mens rea in cases of alleged duty evasion and provided a detailed interpretation of the relevant rules and legal provisions governing Cenvat credit reversal and penalty imposition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Aug 2013 11:52:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172036" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (11) TMI 785 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155005</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, emphasizing the lack of evidence of intentional evasion of duty by the respondents. The decision highlighted the importance of proving mens rea in cases of alleged duty evasion and provided a detailed interpretation of the relevant rules and legal provisions governing Cenvat credit reversal and penalty imposition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155005</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>