<?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 (7) TMI 558 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382862</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalty order under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, due to procedural discrepancies and lack of legal justification. The appeal regarding duty liability under Section 11AB was allowed, emphasizing the need for a prescribed process by competent authorities in determining duty differentials accurately. The Tribunal highlighted flaws in the authorities&#039; approach and stressed adherence to legal procedures and evidence in excise duty matters.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Jul 2019 07:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=578972" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (7) TMI 558 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382862</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalty order under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, due to procedural discrepancies and lack of legal justification. The appeal regarding duty liability under Section 11AB was allowed, emphasizing the need for a prescribed process by competent authorities in determining duty differentials accurately. The Tribunal highlighted flaws in the authorities&#039; approach and stressed adherence to legal procedures and evidence in excise duty matters.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382862</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>