<?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>2015 (1) TMI 1082 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255883</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the demand of duty within the normal period of limitation, set aside the demand beyond the limitation period, and ruled that the appellants were not required to pay cess on the automobile due to the body being built on the cess-paid chassis. Penalties were found not imposable due to the non-invitability of the extended period of limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2015 06:34:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=374813" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (1) TMI 1082 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255883</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the demand of duty within the normal period of limitation, set aside the demand beyond the limitation period, and ruled that the appellants were not required to pay cess on the automobile due to the body being built on the cess-paid chassis. Penalties were found not imposable due to the non-invitability of the extended period of limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255883</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>