<?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 (9) TMI 4 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366268</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant under rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, for allegedly enabling CENVAT credit without supplying goods. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the original authority, directing reconsideration of the appellant&#039;s request for cross-examination to uphold procedural fairness and comply with principles of natural justice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Sep 2018 06:05:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=532806" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (9) TMI 4 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366268</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant under rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, for allegedly enabling CENVAT credit without supplying goods. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the original authority, directing reconsideration of the appellant&#039;s request for cross-examination to uphold procedural fairness and comply with principles of natural justice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366268</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>