<?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>1999 (7) TMI 171 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91920</link>
    <description>Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules is sustainable only if the Department proves that the person dealt with excisable goods knowing, or having reason to believe, that they were liable to confiscation. The burden lies on the Department to establish this guilty knowledge or conscious participation. On the facts, no evidence showed the requisite mens rea, so the statutory precondition for penalty was not met and the penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2011 18:20:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128981" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (7) TMI 171 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91920</link>
      <description>Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules is sustainable only if the Department proves that the person dealt with excisable goods knowing, or having reason to believe, that they were liable to confiscation. The burden lies on the Department to establish this guilty knowledge or conscious participation. On the facts, no evidence showed the requisite mens rea, so the statutory precondition for penalty was not met and the penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91920</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>