<?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 (1) TMI 457 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78301</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to set aside the penalty imposed on the respondent, emphasizing that the facts did not warrant penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The judgment highlighted the importance of assessing each case&#039;s unique circumstances when determining penalty imposition for duty evasion or suppression.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Nov 2010 13:17:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=116425" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (1) TMI 457 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78301</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to set aside the penalty imposed on the respondent, emphasizing that the facts did not warrant penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The judgment highlighted the importance of assessing each case&#039;s unique circumstances when determining penalty imposition for duty evasion or suppression.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78301</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>