<?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 (12) TMI 281 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352012</link>
    <description>The tribunal determined that the goods supplied by the appellant were classified as boilers under Chapter Heading 8402.10 and qualified for exemption under specific Central Excise Notifications. It was held that the extended period for demand was not warranted as there was no suppression of facts by the appellant. As a result, the demand was rejected, and the appellant&#039;s appeal was successful.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Mar 2019 18:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=498742" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 281 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352012</link>
      <description>The tribunal determined that the goods supplied by the appellant were classified as boilers under Chapter Heading 8402.10 and qualified for exemption under specific Central Excise Notifications. It was held that the extended period for demand was not warranted as there was no suppression of facts by the appellant. As a result, the demand was rejected, and the appellant&#039;s appeal was successful.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352012</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>