<?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 476 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325292</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the interest liability on the appellant for the revision of cost for captively consumed goods but set aside the penalty imposed. The decision emphasized adherence to established legal principles and considered the specific circumstances of the case, ruling in favor of the appellant regarding the penalty imposition under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 May 2016 15:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=420255" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 476 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325292</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the interest liability on the appellant for the revision of cost for captively consumed goods but set aside the penalty imposed. The decision emphasized adherence to established legal principles and considered the specific circumstances of the case, ruling in favor of the appellant regarding the penalty imposition under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325292</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>