<?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>2013 (4) TMI 716 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172023</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a 100% EOU, in two appeals related to Central Excise and Customs duties. The duty liability for capital goods should be computed based on the rates prevailing on the debonding date in 2006, not the importation/procurement date. The Tribunal also directed the adjudicating authority to consider the appellant&#039;s request for reduced penalty in accordance with the law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:29:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=392995" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (4) TMI 716 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172023</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a 100% EOU, in two appeals related to Central Excise and Customs duties. The duty liability for capital goods should be computed based on the rates prevailing on the debonding date in 2006, not the importation/procurement date. The Tribunal also directed the adjudicating authority to consider the appellant&#039;s request for reduced penalty in accordance with the law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172023</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>