<?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>2008 (7) TMI 37 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30305</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the classification of &quot;Milkybar Choo&quot; as white chocolate under the Central Excise Tariff, confirming the duty demand. However, the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was set aside as there was no suppression of facts. The appeal was partly allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=68962" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 37 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30305</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the classification of &quot;Milkybar Choo&quot; as white chocolate under the Central Excise Tariff, confirming the duty demand. However, the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was set aside as there was no suppression of facts. The appeal was partly allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30305</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>