<?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 456 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267647</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld the demand for Central Excise duty with interest but set aside the penalties imposed on the appellant. The appellant&#039;s failure to adhere to the prescribed procedure for claiming abatement under the production capacity based duty discharge scheme rendered their claim invalid, despite power restrictions in the area. The tribunal found that the penalties were unwarranted as the appellant genuinely believed they could claim abatement later.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Oct 2016 15:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=404864" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 456 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267647</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld the demand for Central Excise duty with interest but set aside the penalties imposed on the appellant. The appellant&#039;s failure to adhere to the prescribed procedure for claiming abatement under the production capacity based duty discharge scheme rendered their claim invalid, despite power restrictions in the area. The tribunal found that the penalties were unwarranted as the appellant genuinely believed they could claim abatement later.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267647</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>