<?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>2013 (7) TMI 306 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235148</link>
    <description>The Tribunal granted waiver of pre-deposit of penalty for the appeal hearing as duty and interest had already been paid. The impugned order was set aside due to the same person acting as both the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority, leading to concerns about impartiality. The matter was remanded to a different Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision to ensure fairness in the adjudication process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2014 12:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=197558" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (7) TMI 306 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235148</link>
      <description>The Tribunal granted waiver of pre-deposit of penalty for the appeal hearing as duty and interest had already been paid. The impugned order was set aside due to the same person acting as both the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority, leading to concerns about impartiality. The matter was remanded to a different Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision to ensure fairness in the adjudication process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235148</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>