<?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>2014 (3) TMI 486 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245033</link>
    <description>The tribunal, led by Mr. Ashok Jindal, allowed both appeals and set aside the penalties imposed on the appellants under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The tribunal found that the main party had paid the required amounts within the specified timeframe, leading to the conclusion that the penalties imposed on the appellants were not warranted. The stay applications were also disposed of in favor of the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2014 12:10:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348783" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (3) TMI 486 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245033</link>
      <description>The tribunal, led by Mr. Ashok Jindal, allowed both appeals and set aside the penalties imposed on the appellants under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The tribunal found that the main party had paid the required amounts within the specified timeframe, leading to the conclusion that the penalties imposed on the appellants were not warranted. The stay applications were also disposed of in favor of the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245033</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>