<?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 311 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361484</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalty of Rs. 4,05,000/- imposed by the first appellate authority under Rule 15(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, finding it unsustainable due to improper procedure and lack of challenge by the Revenue. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, highlighting the incorrect imposition of the penalty under Rule 15(1) without proper procedure and the absence of appeal from the Revenue against penalties imposed under Section 11AC read with Rule 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Jun 2018 07:16:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=522781" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (6) TMI 311 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361484</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalty of Rs. 4,05,000/- imposed by the first appellate authority under Rule 15(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, finding it unsustainable due to improper procedure and lack of challenge by the Revenue. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, highlighting the incorrect imposition of the penalty under Rule 15(1) without proper procedure and the absence of appeal from the Revenue against penalties imposed under Section 11AC read with Rule 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361484</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>