<?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 (12) TMI 137 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208060</link>
    <description>The court upheld the Revenue&#039;s argument regarding the use of power in the manufacturing process, set aside demands beyond the limitation period, and penalties due to lack of intent to evade duty. The appeals were allowed in part, with demands for the normal period to be recalculated after considering cum-duty-price benefit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Jan 2014 18:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=181532" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (12) TMI 137 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208060</link>
      <description>The court upheld the Revenue&#039;s argument regarding the use of power in the manufacturing process, set aside demands beyond the limitation period, and penalties due to lack of intent to evade duty. The appeals were allowed in part, with demands for the normal period to be recalculated after considering cum-duty-price benefit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208060</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>