<?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 (12) TMI 661 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269357</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of excess M.S. Ingots, valued at Rs. 10,98,000, due to failure to challenge stock verification. The excise duty demand was not confirmed as goods were not cleared, reducing penalties from Rs. 1,79,194 to Rs. 25,000 and redemption fine from Rs. 3,30,000 to Rs. 2 lakhs. Despite appellant&#039;s absence, the Tribunal proceeded with the case. Penalties on the appellant were reduced, and the Director&#039;s appeal was allowed due to unwarranted penalization for stock accounting errors.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 Dec 2015 23:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=408860" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (12) TMI 661 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269357</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of excess M.S. Ingots, valued at Rs. 10,98,000, due to failure to challenge stock verification. The excise duty demand was not confirmed as goods were not cleared, reducing penalties from Rs. 1,79,194 to Rs. 25,000 and redemption fine from Rs. 3,30,000 to Rs. 2 lakhs. Despite appellant&#039;s absence, the Tribunal proceeded with the case. Penalties on the appellant were reduced, and the Director&#039;s appeal was allowed due to unwarranted penalization for stock accounting errors.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269357</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>