<?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>2014 (11) TMI 1049 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179551</link>
    <description>The appellate tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, rejecting allegations of suppression of facts and evasion of duty. It held that the extended period under Section 11A was not applicable and no penalty under Section 11AC was justified. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief granted to the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2016 10:54:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=418908" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (11) TMI 1049 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179551</link>
      <description>The appellate tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, rejecting allegations of suppression of facts and evasion of duty. It held that the extended period under Section 11A was not applicable and no penalty under Section 11AC was justified. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief granted to the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179551</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>