<?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 869 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362042</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding the demand in the show cause notice for the period March &#039;95 to Nov &#039;95 to be time-barred. The Tribunal held that the department had the necessary documents and information earlier, making the demand unjustified. Relying on the case law of Nizam Sugar factory, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and granted consequential reliefs to the Appellant. The judgment was pronounced on 23/05/2018 by the Tribunal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2018 09:26:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=524035" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (6) TMI 869 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362042</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding the demand in the show cause notice for the period March &#039;95 to Nov &#039;95 to be time-barred. The Tribunal held that the department had the necessary documents and information earlier, making the demand unjustified. Relying on the case law of Nizam Sugar factory, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and granted consequential reliefs to the Appellant. The judgment was pronounced on 23/05/2018 by the Tribunal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362042</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>