<?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>2016 (3) TMI 302 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325118</link>
    <description>Proceedings founded solely on Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could not be sustained after that provision had been struck down as unconstitutional by High Courts. Because the show cause notice and consequential orders derived entirely from the invalidated rule, the demand, interest and penalty lacked a lawful foundation and were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2016 15:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=419733" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 302 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325118</link>
      <description>Proceedings founded solely on Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could not be sustained after that provision had been struck down as unconstitutional by High Courts. Because the show cause notice and consequential orders derived entirely from the invalidated rule, the demand, interest and penalty lacked a lawful foundation and were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325118</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>