<?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 (3) TMI 594 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340091</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed under Section 11AC and Rule 25, partially allowing the appeals. The judgment emphasized the significance of considering the debatable nature of issues and the absence of intent to evade duty when deciding on penalties in excise matters.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Mar 2017 12:15:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=461193" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 594 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340091</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed under Section 11AC and Rule 25, partially allowing the appeals. The judgment emphasized the significance of considering the debatable nature of issues and the absence of intent to evade duty when deciding on penalties in excise matters.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340091</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>