<?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>2018 (1) TMI 200 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353464</link>
    <description>The appeal was allowed in favor of the revenue, overturning the dropping of central excise duty demand and penalty imposition on Badve Autocomps Pvt. Ltd. The court emphasized the need to follow established refund procedures under the Central Excise Act and Rules, stating that no suo motu adjustment between units was permissible. It was ruled that while the appellants could claim a refund for the duty deposited in the closed unit, they were not entitled to automatically credit the amount in their operational unit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Jan 2018 08:11:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=503185" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 200 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353464</link>
      <description>The appeal was allowed in favor of the revenue, overturning the dropping of central excise duty demand and penalty imposition on Badve Autocomps Pvt. Ltd. The court emphasized the need to follow established refund procedures under the Central Excise Act and Rules, stating that no suo motu adjustment between units was permissible. It was ruled that while the appellants could claim a refund for the duty deposited in the closed unit, they were not entitled to automatically credit the amount in their operational unit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353464</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>