<?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 (9) TMI 347 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347590</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld the demand for excise duty, directed verification of cenvat credit utilization, and maintained the penalty under Section 11AC. The Director of the company was held individually liable for penalties under the Central Excise Rules for being aware of non-payment of excise duty and collection from customers without remittance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Sep 2017 12:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=488488" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 347 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347590</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld the demand for excise duty, directed verification of cenvat credit utilization, and maintained the penalty under Section 11AC. The Director of the company was held individually liable for penalties under the Central Excise Rules for being aware of non-payment of excise duty and collection from customers without remittance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347590</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>