<?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 (11) TMI 1453 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351574</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the demand for Excise Duty on medicaments sold through consignment agents for a specific period, noting no suppression of facts regarding the duty payment made. The penalty under Section 11AC was set aside as not legal, and the personal penalty on an employee was also dismissed due to lack of evidence of malafide intention. The appellant&#039;s appeal was partly allowed, favoring them on limitation and penalty issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Nov 2017 07:38:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=497841" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 1453 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351574</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the demand for Excise Duty on medicaments sold through consignment agents for a specific period, noting no suppression of facts regarding the duty payment made. The penalty under Section 11AC was set aside as not legal, and the personal penalty on an employee was also dismissed due to lack of evidence of malafide intention. The appellant&#039;s appeal was partly allowed, favoring them on limitation and penalty issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351574</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>