<?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 (11) TMI 393 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94268</link>
    <description>An amnesty settlement by the main manufacturer did not automatically absolve a connected appellant from penalty, because the scheme did not extend to persons in his position and the record showed his participation in the contravention. The appellant therefore remained liable in principle. However, the Tribunal treated the original penalty as excessive in light of his status as a low-paid employee and the surrounding circumstances, and moderated the sanction to a nominal amount.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Nov 2011 12:29:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131328" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (11) TMI 393 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94268</link>
      <description>An amnesty settlement by the main manufacturer did not automatically absolve a connected appellant from penalty, because the scheme did not extend to persons in his position and the record showed his participation in the contravention. The appellant therefore remained liable in principle. However, the Tribunal treated the original penalty as excessive in light of his status as a low-paid employee and the surrounding circumstances, and moderated the sanction to a nominal amount.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94268</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>