<?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>2009 (7) TMI 284 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75230</link>
    <description>The Tribunal rejected the Revenue&#039;s appeals and upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), ruling against the imposition of penalties under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of establishing all elements, including mens rea, for imposing penalties under Section 11AC. In the absence of evidence demonstrating clandestine clearance or mens rea on the part of the respondent, the penalties were deemed unjustified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113502" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 284 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75230</link>
      <description>The Tribunal rejected the Revenue&#039;s appeals and upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), ruling against the imposition of penalties under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of establishing all elements, including mens rea, for imposing penalties under Section 11AC. In the absence of evidence demonstrating clandestine clearance or mens rea on the part of the respondent, the penalties were deemed unjustified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75230</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>