<?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 (12) TMI 1472 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372703</link>
    <description>The tribunal ruled against the appellants, a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU), regarding the applicability of Exemption Notification No. 30/2004-CE for Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) clearances. The tribunal found that the notification did not exempt EOUs unless specifically mentioned, leading to the rejection of the appellants&#039; claim. Despite the Commissioner (Appeal) setting aside penalties, the tribunal upheld the duty demand, interest, and dismissed the appeal based on the enforceability of the undertaking provided by the appellants, which negated the limitation argument. The Member (Judicial) differed on the limitation issue, suggesting referral to a larger bench and setting aside the demand on limitation grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Dec 2018 10:18:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=549687" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (12) TMI 1472 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372703</link>
      <description>The tribunal ruled against the appellants, a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU), regarding the applicability of Exemption Notification No. 30/2004-CE for Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) clearances. The tribunal found that the notification did not exempt EOUs unless specifically mentioned, leading to the rejection of the appellants&#039; claim. Despite the Commissioner (Appeal) setting aside penalties, the tribunal upheld the duty demand, interest, and dismissed the appeal based on the enforceability of the undertaking provided by the appellants, which negated the limitation argument. The Member (Judicial) differed on the limitation issue, suggesting referral to a larger bench and setting aside the demand on limitation grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372703</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>