<?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>2007 (3) TMI 91 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1702</link>
    <description>The appellate tribunal upheld the duty demand confirmation and personal penalty imposition under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. However, it set aside penalties imposed under Section 11AC due to duty deposit before notice issuance and for exceeding exemption limits without mala fide intent. Confiscation of goods was overturned except for a nominal penalty for record-keeping failures.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41092" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (3) TMI 91 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1702</link>
      <description>The appellate tribunal upheld the duty demand confirmation and personal penalty imposition under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. However, it set aside penalties imposed under Section 11AC due to duty deposit before notice issuance and for exceeding exemption limits without mala fide intent. Confiscation of goods was overturned except for a nominal penalty for record-keeping failures.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1702</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>