<?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 (5) TMI 446 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379718</link>
    <description>Duty quantified in remand proceedings on the basis of available records and best judgment valuation was sustained because the assessee produced no material to dislodge the computation. However, a penalty earlier set aside in the remand order could not be reimposed in the fresh adjudication without a fresh legal basis, so the penalty was deleted. The appeal therefore succeeded only to that limited extent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 May 2019 07:04:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=570030" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (5) TMI 446 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379718</link>
      <description>Duty quantified in remand proceedings on the basis of available records and best judgment valuation was sustained because the assessee produced no material to dislodge the computation. However, a penalty earlier set aside in the remand order could not be reimposed in the fresh adjudication without a fresh legal basis, so the penalty was deleted. The appeal therefore succeeded only to that limited extent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379718</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>