<?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 (6) TMI 73 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380996</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the Appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed on the Appellant under Rule 15(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Section 78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. The penalty was overturned as there was no evidence of fraud or suppression of facts, and the error was rectified promptly by the Appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Jun 2019 09:39:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=573694" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (6) TMI 73 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380996</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the Appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed on the Appellant under Rule 15(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Section 78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. The penalty was overturned as there was no evidence of fraud or suppression of facts, and the error was rectified promptly by the Appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380996</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>