<?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 (11) TMI 1341 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335323</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal of Revenue, ruling that furnace oil used as feedstock cannot be considered as such for exemption under notifications. Penalties were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the adjudicating authority to quantify the demand within the limitation period. Demands raised beyond one year were set aside due to limitation, while demands within the one-year period were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2016 11:58:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450023" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 1341 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335323</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal of Revenue, ruling that furnace oil used as feedstock cannot be considered as such for exemption under notifications. Penalties were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the adjudicating authority to quantify the demand within the limitation period. Demands raised beyond one year were set aside due to limitation, while demands within the one-year period were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335323</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>