<?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>2000 (10) TMI 148 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50255</link>
    <description>The appeals were allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The Tribunal found that the department did not substantiate its case on merits or limitation, leading to the conclusion that the demand for duty and associated penalties were unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Aug 2010 16:18:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88735" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (10) TMI 148 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50255</link>
      <description>The appeals were allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The Tribunal found that the department did not substantiate its case on merits or limitation, leading to the conclusion that the demand for duty and associated penalties were unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50255</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>