<?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 (6) TMI 115 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361288</link>
    <description>Reversal of CENVAT credit with interest before issuance of the show-cause notice attracted Section 11A(2B) of the Central Excise Act, so the demand should not have been pursued by notice. Audit of the records during the relevant period also negatived any allegation of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. On that footing, penalty under Rule 15(2) read with Section 11AC was held unsustainable and was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Jun 2018 23:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=522426" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (6) TMI 115 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361288</link>
      <description>Reversal of CENVAT credit with interest before issuance of the show-cause notice attracted Section 11A(2B) of the Central Excise Act, so the demand should not have been pursued by notice. Audit of the records during the relevant period also negatived any allegation of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. On that footing, penalty under Rule 15(2) read with Section 11AC was held unsustainable and was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361288</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>