<?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 (3) TMI 168 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257232</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as the appellant failed to disclose the consideration received for cleaning charges, impacting the assessable value of goods. The non-disclosure discovered during a departmental audit led to the dismissal of the appeal, affirming the penalty for non-disclosure of relevant information.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:35:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=378047" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (3) TMI 168 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257232</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as the appellant failed to disclose the consideration received for cleaning charges, impacting the assessable value of goods. The non-disclosure discovered during a departmental audit led to the dismissal of the appeal, affirming the penalty for non-disclosure of relevant information.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257232</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>