<?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 1311 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270007</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the demand raised beyond the limitation period but confirmed demands within the limitation period with interest. They held that the penalty was unwarranted based on interpretation of law. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, focusing on the question of revenue neutrality and not delving into other submissions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Dec 2015 11:29:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=410633" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (12) TMI 1311 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270007</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the demand raised beyond the limitation period but confirmed demands within the limitation period with interest. They held that the penalty was unwarranted based on interpretation of law. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, focusing on the question of revenue neutrality and not delving into other submissions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270007</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>