<?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 (11) TMI 214 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267405</link>
    <description>The appeals by appellants No.1, 2, and 3 were dismissed, upholding the duty, interest, and penalties imposed. The tribunal found the documents recovered from appellant No.3&#039;s office to be legitimate, disregarded the retracted statements of appellant No.2, and denied the cross-examination of witnesses. Appellant No.1&#039;s factory was deemed investigated based on admissions, and penalties on appellants No.4 and 5 were reduced but upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2016 16:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=404306" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 214 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267405</link>
      <description>The appeals by appellants No.1, 2, and 3 were dismissed, upholding the duty, interest, and penalties imposed. The tribunal found the documents recovered from appellant No.3&#039;s office to be legitimate, disregarded the retracted statements of appellant No.2, and denied the cross-examination of witnesses. Appellant No.1&#039;s factory was deemed investigated based on admissions, and penalties on appellants No.4 and 5 were reduced but upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267405</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>