<?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 920 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245472</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Original confirming an excise duty demand of Rs.1,68,90,942/- for the period April, 2011 to October, 2011. The appellant&#039;s request for a stay on the demand was partially granted, with an order to make a pre-deposit of 50% of the confirmed excise duty amount within eight weeks. Recovery of the remaining dues was stayed during the appeal process, emphasizing adherence to the latest decision on pre-deposit amounts in similar cases. Compliance reporting was mandated by the Tribunal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2014 09:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=350201" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (3) TMI 920 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245472</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Original confirming an excise duty demand of Rs.1,68,90,942/- for the period April, 2011 to October, 2011. The appellant&#039;s request for a stay on the demand was partially granted, with an order to make a pre-deposit of 50% of the confirmed excise duty amount within eight weeks. Recovery of the remaining dues was stayed during the appeal process, emphasizing adherence to the latest decision on pre-deposit amounts in similar cases. Compliance reporting was mandated by the Tribunal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245472</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>