<?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 787 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256787</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld the duty liability and interest but set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. This decision was based on the appellant&#039;s bonafide belief that the brand label affixing was covered under a specific Notification, and any duty evasion was unintentional due to confusion around the interpretation of the Notification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=376574" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (2) TMI 787 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256787</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld the duty liability and interest but set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. This decision was based on the appellant&#039;s bonafide belief that the brand label affixing was covered under a specific Notification, and any duty evasion was unintentional due to confusion around the interpretation of the Notification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256787</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>