<?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>1991 (3) TMI 291 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83818</link>
    <description>Failure to file RT 12 returns was treated as a procedural lapse where no duty demand had been raised, no evasion was alleged, and the units were otherwise eligible for exemption on filing the required declaration. On those facts, the omission was viewed with leniency rather than as conduct warranting penalty, and the penalties were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2011 11:43:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120962" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (3) TMI 291 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83818</link>
      <description>Failure to file RT 12 returns was treated as a procedural lapse where no duty demand had been raised, no evasion was alleged, and the units were otherwise eligible for exemption on filing the required declaration. On those facts, the omission was viewed with leniency rather than as conduct warranting penalty, and the penalties were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83818</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>