<?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>2017 (2) TMI 430 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338730</link>
    <description>The appellate tribunal dismissed the appeal challenging the remand order and upheld the original authority&#039;s decision on the classification of food items for central excise duty, validity of duty demand based on sales proportion, imposition of penalties under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and compliance with valuation rules under section 4 of the Act. The tribunal also found the appeal not maintainable due to falling below the value in dispute threshold, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Feb 2018 11:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=458170" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 430 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338730</link>
      <description>The appellate tribunal dismissed the appeal challenging the remand order and upheld the original authority&#039;s decision on the classification of food items for central excise duty, validity of duty demand based on sales proportion, imposition of penalties under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and compliance with valuation rules under section 4 of the Act. The tribunal also found the appeal not maintainable due to falling below the value in dispute threshold, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338730</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>