<?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 518 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78320</link>
    <description>The Tribunal reduced the penalty imposed on the appellants for contravening Cenvat Credit Rules due to the absence of mala fide intention to evade duty. Although Section 11AC was deemed inapplicable, a reduced penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Rule 15 was imposed on each appellant for a procedural lapse in not informing the department about availing Cenvat credit on goods kept in the godown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Nov 2010 13:42:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=116444" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (3) TMI 518 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78320</link>
      <description>The Tribunal reduced the penalty imposed on the appellants for contravening Cenvat Credit Rules due to the absence of mala fide intention to evade duty. Although Section 11AC was deemed inapplicable, a reduced penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Rule 15 was imposed on each appellant for a procedural lapse in not informing the department about availing Cenvat credit on goods kept in the godown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78320</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>