<?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>2010 (3) TMI 57 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75623</link>
    <description>The High Court dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, ruling that penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules cannot be imposed without proving mens rea, particularly when the delay in payment was caused by external factors beyond the Assessee&#039;s control. The Court emphasized the necessity of considering mens rea in penalty imposition for delayed duty payment, in line with previous legal precedents.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Aug 2010 14:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113886" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (3) TMI 57 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75623</link>
      <description>The High Court dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, ruling that penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules cannot be imposed without proving mens rea, particularly when the delay in payment was caused by external factors beyond the Assessee&#039;s control. The Court emphasized the necessity of considering mens rea in penalty imposition for delayed duty payment, in line with previous legal precedents.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75623</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>