<?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 890 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438083</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order. It determined that the place of removal was the factory gate, not the EPD Chennai, and that Rule 5 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules was not applicable. The demand for duty and penalty was deemed invalid, and the show cause notice was considered time-barred. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the order was pronounced in open court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 May 2023 11:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=714355" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (5) TMI 890 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438083</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order. It determined that the place of removal was the factory gate, not the EPD Chennai, and that Rule 5 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules was not applicable. The demand for duty and penalty was deemed invalid, and the show cause notice was considered time-barred. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the order was pronounced in open court.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438083</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>