<?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 (9) TMI 364 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35428</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside the differential duty for the extended period, finding no evidence of suppression or intent to evade duty by the respondent. The appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected, and the Order-in-Original was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=74015" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (9) TMI 364 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35428</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside the differential duty for the extended period, finding no evidence of suppression or intent to evade duty by the respondent. The appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected, and the Order-in-Original was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35428</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>