<?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 (8) TMI 440 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346382</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the confirmation of demand and penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, dismissing the appeal against the extended period of limitation invocation. The Tribunal also rejected the adjustment of already paid duty against the demand due to lack of evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Sep 2017 16:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=485237" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 440 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346382</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the confirmation of demand and penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, dismissing the appeal against the extended period of limitation invocation. The Tribunal also rejected the adjustment of already paid duty against the demand due to lack of evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346382</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>