<?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>2023 (5) TMI 330 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437523</link>
    <description>The appeal was rejected due to a 38-day delay in filing, exceeding the condonable period. The demand for interest under Rule 7(4) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 was upheld based on the decision of the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court. The Tribunal found no grounds to allow the appeal on merits, as the issue was settled by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and cross objections were disposed of.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 May 2023 08:05:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=713051" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (5) TMI 330 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437523</link>
      <description>The appeal was rejected due to a 38-day delay in filing, exceeding the condonable period. The demand for interest under Rule 7(4) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 was upheld based on the decision of the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court. The Tribunal found no grounds to allow the appeal on merits, as the issue was settled by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and cross objections were disposed of.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437523</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>