<?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 (12) TMI 533 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201414</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, determining that interest under Section 11AB was not applicable for the period before 11-5-2001 on the differential duty paid, except for a brief period. The Tribunal also rejected the imposition of a penalty under Section 11AC due to the absence of necessary allegations in the show-cause notice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Jan 2011 12:49:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=175025" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (12) TMI 533 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201414</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, determining that interest under Section 11AB was not applicable for the period before 11-5-2001 on the differential duty paid, except for a brief period. The Tribunal also rejected the imposition of a penalty under Section 11AC due to the absence of necessary allegations in the show-cause notice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201414</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>