<?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 (2) TMI 343 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256343</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, including the extended period of limitation. However, the demand for the period from 09.11.2006 to 31.03.2007 was set aside as duty was paid. The appellant was granted cum-duty benefit, and the penalty under Section 11AC was to be recalculated. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2015 15:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=375677" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (2) TMI 343 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256343</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, including the extended period of limitation. However, the demand for the period from 09.11.2006 to 31.03.2007 was set aside as duty was paid. The appellant was granted cum-duty benefit, and the penalty under Section 11AC was to be recalculated. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256343</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>