<?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 (12) TMI 154 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52460</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the demand for duty and penalty on the appellant for misclassifying &#039;Odonil,&#039; correcting the duty rate from 18% to the accurate 16% ad valorem. Despite the issue not being raised earlier, the Tribunal had the authority to rectify the mistake in the duty rate applied by the Commissioner, emphasizing the importance of applying the correct duty rate in accordance with the law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Oct 2010 10:05:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90937" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (12) TMI 154 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52460</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the demand for duty and penalty on the appellant for misclassifying &#039;Odonil,&#039; correcting the duty rate from 18% to the accurate 16% ad valorem. Despite the issue not being raised earlier, the Tribunal had the authority to rectify the mistake in the duty rate applied by the Commissioner, emphasizing the importance of applying the correct duty rate in accordance with the law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52460</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>