<?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 (6) TMI 513 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328804</link>
    <description>A duty demand cannot be sustained where the sole ground in the show cause notice fails and the adjudicating authority then confirms liability on a different basis not alleged in the notice. The notice is the foundation of adjudication, so the authority must confine itself to the stated allegations and cannot travel beyond them. Applying that principle, the demand and penalty were held unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside with the appeals allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2016 16:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=431464" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 513 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328804</link>
      <description>A duty demand cannot be sustained where the sole ground in the show cause notice fails and the adjudicating authority then confirms liability on a different basis not alleged in the notice. The notice is the foundation of adjudication, so the authority must confine itself to the stated allegations and cannot travel beyond them. Applying that principle, the demand and penalty were held unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside with the appeals allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328804</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>