<?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 (9) TMI 92 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331831</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the product manufactured by the appellants was Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) and not Concrete Mix (CM). As a result, the product was not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 4/97 dated 01.03.1997. Additionally, the Tribunal determined that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked due to genuine confusion regarding the taxability of RMC. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the demand and penalties against the appellants were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2017 15:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=439883" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 92 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331831</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the product manufactured by the appellants was Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) and not Concrete Mix (CM). As a result, the product was not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 4/97 dated 01.03.1997. Additionally, the Tribunal determined that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked due to genuine confusion regarding the taxability of RMC. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the demand and penalties against the appellants were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331831</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>