<?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>2003 (5) TMI 113 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51912</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner&#039;s order and granting remission of duty to the appellant. The Tribunal concluded that the fire was an unavoidable accident, as reasonable precautions were taken, and negligence was not proven. The judgment emphasized that there was no evidence of negligence by the manufacturer in preventing the fire, and referred to a previous case where remission was granted when the cause of the fire was unascertainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Sep 2010 11:58:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90390" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (5) TMI 113 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51912</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner&#039;s order and granting remission of duty to the appellant. The Tribunal concluded that the fire was an unavoidable accident, as reasonable precautions were taken, and negligence was not proven. The judgment emphasized that there was no evidence of negligence by the manufacturer in preventing the fire, and referred to a previous case where remission was granted when the cause of the fire was unascertainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51912</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>