<?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 (4) TMI 551 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341581</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the demand for duty exceeding the exemption limit was time-barred as there was no suppression of facts by the appellant, and the department could have identified the exemption amount during the registration process. The Tribunal set aside the order confirming duty, penalty, and interest, allowing the appeal solely on the limitation issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Apr 2017 07:17:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=465623" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 551 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341581</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the demand for duty exceeding the exemption limit was time-barred as there was no suppression of facts by the appellant, and the department could have identified the exemption amount during the registration process. The Tribunal set aside the order confirming duty, penalty, and interest, allowing the appeal solely on the limitation issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341581</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>