<?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 375 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361548</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by modifying the order to enable the appellant to discharge a portion of the penalty. The decision emphasized the importance of providing concrete evidence to support claims of availing credit under CENVAT rules, highlighting the burden of proof on the assessee in cases of discrepancies or lack of documentation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Jun 2018 07:39:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=522966" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (6) TMI 375 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361548</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by modifying the order to enable the appellant to discharge a portion of the penalty. The decision emphasized the importance of providing concrete evidence to support claims of availing credit under CENVAT rules, highlighting the burden of proof on the assessee in cases of discrepancies or lack of documentation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361548</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>