<?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>1998 (6) TMI 177 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88906</link>
    <description>Wrongful Modvat credit taken without supporting duty-paid documents, along with PLA entries made without depositing the amount, was treated as conduct attracting penalty on the company because it facilitated removal of excisable goods without duty under Rule 173Q. The penalty was sustained but moderated in quantum. Personal penalty on the Managing Director under Rule 209A was not justified because the record did not show his knowledge, reasonable belief, or involvement in the irregularity, and the absence of the required mental element prevented confiscation-based liability. The company remained liable, while the individual penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2011 11:28:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125969" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (6) TMI 177 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88906</link>
      <description>Wrongful Modvat credit taken without supporting duty-paid documents, along with PLA entries made without depositing the amount, was treated as conduct attracting penalty on the company because it facilitated removal of excisable goods without duty under Rule 173Q. The penalty was sustained but moderated in quantum. Personal penalty on the Managing Director under Rule 209A was not justified because the record did not show his knowledge, reasonable belief, or involvement in the irregularity, and the absence of the required mental element prevented confiscation-based liability. The company remained liable, while the individual penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88906</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>