<?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 (10) TMI 324 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76537</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, emphasizing that the penalty was unwarranted as the department intended to penalize under Rule 25, not Section 11AC. The Tribunal clarified that Section 11AC is a self-contained penal provision, and the reliance solely on it for imposing the penalty was incorrect. The appeal was allowed, stressing the significance of correctly applying penal provisions in such circumstances.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=114744" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (10) TMI 324 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76537</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, emphasizing that the penalty was unwarranted as the department intended to penalize under Rule 25, not Section 11AC. The Tribunal clarified that Section 11AC is a self-contained penal provision, and the reliance solely on it for imposing the penalty was incorrect. The appeal was allowed, stressing the significance of correctly applying penal provisions in such circumstances.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76537</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>