<?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 (5) TMI 167 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259293</link>
    <description>The Tribunal rejected the rectification application regarding the penalty under Section 11AC, as it was confirmed by the adjudicating authority and deemed mandatory due to the duty demand for clandestine clearance of Terpene being sustained. The disagreement between the Tribunal members did not impact the penalty imposition, as the duty demand&#039;s confirmation automatically triggered the penalty provision under the law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Feb 2016 12:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=383910" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (5) TMI 167 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259293</link>
      <description>The Tribunal rejected the rectification application regarding the penalty under Section 11AC, as it was confirmed by the adjudicating authority and deemed mandatory due to the duty demand for clandestine clearance of Terpene being sustained. The disagreement between the Tribunal members did not impact the penalty imposition, as the duty demand&#039;s confirmation automatically triggered the penalty provision under the law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259293</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>