<?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 (10) TMI 513 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349358</link>
    <description>The appeal was disposed of by way of remand to address the specific issue of penalty imposition under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority had failed to provide findings on the penalty under Rule 15 in the final order, leading to the remand for a proper determination on this aspect. The Tribunal&#039;s decision ensures a fair resolution by directing the adjudicating authority to address the penalty imposition issue specifically.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Nov 2017 12:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=492292" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (10) TMI 513 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349358</link>
      <description>The appeal was disposed of by way of remand to address the specific issue of penalty imposition under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority had failed to provide findings on the penalty under Rule 15 in the final order, leading to the remand for a proper determination on this aspect. The Tribunal&#039;s decision ensures a fair resolution by directing the adjudicating authority to address the penalty imposition issue specifically.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349358</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>