<?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>2000 (2) TMI 500 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95586</link>
    <description>Clearing goods on the basis of an earlier approved price, despite filing and obtaining approval of a higher price list, was treated as improper conduct warranting penalty. Payment of duty only after the show cause notice, coupled with a request that no penalty be imposed, did not negate the default. The same lapse, however, did not justify separate penalties under different rules, so the penalty was sustained but reduced in amount.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2011 15:58:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132645" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (2) TMI 500 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95586</link>
      <description>Clearing goods on the basis of an earlier approved price, despite filing and obtaining approval of a higher price list, was treated as improper conduct warranting penalty. Payment of duty only after the show cause notice, coupled with a request that no penalty be imposed, did not negate the default. The same lapse, however, did not justify separate penalties under different rules, so the penalty was sustained but reduced in amount.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95586</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>