<?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>2019 (3) TMI 181 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376160</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, finding no malafide intention or willful default. The extended period of limitation was deemed inapplicable, and no penalty under Section 11AC was imposed due to the Appellant&#039;s bonafide error. Specific allegations must be proven to invoke extended periods and penalties in excise matters.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Mar 2019 08:24:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=561084" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (3) TMI 181 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376160</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, finding no malafide intention or willful default. The extended period of limitation was deemed inapplicable, and no penalty under Section 11AC was imposed due to the Appellant&#039;s bonafide error. Specific allegations must be proven to invoke extended periods and penalties in excise matters.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376160</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>