<?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 (10) TMI 964 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265689</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeals in a case involving manufacturing of medicines under a small scale exemption notification for another company that did not have a manufacturing facility during the relevant period. The appellants&#039; claim of eligibility for exemption was rejected, as the goods were deemed ineligible due to the other company&#039;s lack of manufacturing capacity. The Tribunal upheld the demand for duty and penalty, citing intentional suppression of facts by the appellants, and correctly invoked the extended period of limitation. A nominal penalty was imposed on the second appellant, affirming the penalty imposition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2015 07:47:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=401384" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 964 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265689</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeals in a case involving manufacturing of medicines under a small scale exemption notification for another company that did not have a manufacturing facility during the relevant period. The appellants&#039; claim of eligibility for exemption was rejected, as the goods were deemed ineligible due to the other company&#039;s lack of manufacturing capacity. The Tribunal upheld the demand for duty and penalty, citing intentional suppression of facts by the appellants, and correctly invoked the extended period of limitation. A nominal penalty was imposed on the second appellant, affirming the penalty imposition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265689</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>