<?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 (4) TMI 1760 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284196</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the disallowance of CENVAT credit and the penalty imposed under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The decision was based on the absence of suppression or misrepresentation by the appellant and the application of relevant case laws establishing that the extended period of limitation is not applicable when facts are fully disclosed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Nov 2019 06:12:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=593276" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 1760 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284196</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the disallowance of CENVAT credit and the penalty imposed under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The decision was based on the absence of suppression or misrepresentation by the appellant and the application of relevant case laws establishing that the extended period of limitation is not applicable when facts are fully disclosed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284196</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>