<?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 (12) TMI 450 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240785</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal. The case involved the write-off of capital goods in the respondent&#039;s balance sheets, which the Revenue argued should incur duty, interest, and penalties. However, as the goods had not been cleared from the factory, duty was deemed not payable. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue&#039;s appeal, confirming the dropping of demands as per the show cause notices. The appeal was dismissed on 26/04/2013.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2014 12:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=338956" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (12) TMI 450 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240785</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal. The case involved the write-off of capital goods in the respondent&#039;s balance sheets, which the Revenue argued should incur duty, interest, and penalties. However, as the goods had not been cleared from the factory, duty was deemed not payable. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue&#039;s appeal, confirming the dropping of demands as per the show cause notices. The appeal was dismissed on 26/04/2013.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240785</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>