<?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 1458 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351579</link>
    <description>The appeal was partly allowed as penalties under certain provisions of law and the redemption fine were set aside. The penalty imposed under a specific provision was upheld. The excessive penalty on the partner of the firm was reduced. The imposition of the redemption fine was deemed unjustified and set aside as no goods were available for confiscation. The judgment was pronounced on 23/10/17.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Nov 2017 07:38:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=497846" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 1458 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351579</link>
      <description>The appeal was partly allowed as penalties under certain provisions of law and the redemption fine were set aside. The penalty imposed under a specific provision was upheld. The excessive penalty on the partner of the firm was reduced. The imposition of the redemption fine was deemed unjustified and set aside as no goods were available for confiscation. The judgment was pronounced on 23/10/17.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351579</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>