<?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 (5) TMI 610 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360046</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the demand for interest and penalty, ruling that the extended period for demanding interest was not applicable as there was no suppression of facts by the appellant. The Tribunal found that no show-cause notice should have been issued for the demand of CENVAT credit. The penalty imposed was deemed unsustainable, leading to the appeal being allowed in favor of the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 May 2018 06:11:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=519642" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (5) TMI 610 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360046</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the demand for interest and penalty, ruling that the extended period for demanding interest was not applicable as there was no suppression of facts by the appellant. The Tribunal found that no show-cause notice should have been issued for the demand of CENVAT credit. The penalty imposed was deemed unsustainable, leading to the appeal being allowed in favor of the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360046</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>