<?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 772 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360208</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under Rule 26 on the appellant, allowing the appeal. The appellant successfully argued that as they did not deal with the goods or issue the invoice in question, the penalties under Rule 26 were not applicable to them as they are an artificial entity and not a natural person. The Tribunal found the penalty unjustifiable based on the legal interpretations presented and ruled in favor of the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2019 12:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=520009" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (5) TMI 772 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360208</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under Rule 26 on the appellant, allowing the appeal. The appellant successfully argued that as they did not deal with the goods or issue the invoice in question, the penalties under Rule 26 were not applicable to them as they are an artificial entity and not a natural person. The Tribunal found the penalty unjustifiable based on the legal interpretations presented and ruled in favor of the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360208</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>