<?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>2011 (7) TMI 359 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206675</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, remanding the case to the Commissioner for a fresh quantification of the duty demand, rectification of errors, and an opportunity for the assessee to provide evidence regarding the exclusion of certain goods from the aggregate value of clearances. The interest payable on the correct duty amount under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act and the penal liability under Section 11AC needed to be determined afresh, with the assessee given a reasonable opportunity to present their case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Nov 2011 06:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=180160" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (7) TMI 359 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206675</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, remanding the case to the Commissioner for a fresh quantification of the duty demand, rectification of errors, and an opportunity for the assessee to provide evidence regarding the exclusion of certain goods from the aggregate value of clearances. The interest payable on the correct duty amount under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act and the penal liability under Section 11AC needed to be determined afresh, with the assessee given a reasonable opportunity to present their case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206675</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>