<?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 563 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325379</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the duty demand confirmation and penalties imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944, finding the demand time-barred and ruling in favor of the appellants&#039; bonafide belief in the classification of goods. The extended period for demand was deemed inapplicable due to the absence of suppression of facts by the appellants, resulting in the appeals being allowed and the personal penalty on Shri. Sharad B. Shah being unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=420516" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 563 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325379</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the duty demand confirmation and penalties imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944, finding the demand time-barred and ruling in favor of the appellants&#039; bonafide belief in the classification of goods. The extended period for demand was deemed inapplicable due to the absence of suppression of facts by the appellants, resulting in the appeals being allowed and the personal penalty on Shri. Sharad B. Shah being unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325379</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>