<?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 569 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361742</link>
    <description>An apparent factual error in the recorded quantum of penalty can be corrected in rectification proceedings when the case record supports the mistake. The Tribunal examined the earlier order, found the objection to the penalty figure factually correct, and substituted the recorded amount with the reduced penalty stated in the record. The rectification application was therefore allowed, and the order was amended to reflect the correct penalty amount.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2018 06:43:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=523409" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (6) TMI 569 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361742</link>
      <description>An apparent factual error in the recorded quantum of penalty can be corrected in rectification proceedings when the case record supports the mistake. The Tribunal examined the earlier order, found the objection to the penalty figure factually correct, and substituted the recorded amount with the reduced penalty stated in the record. The rectification application was therefore allowed, and the order was amended to reflect the correct penalty amount.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361742</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>