<?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>2001 (2) TMI 488 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95955</link>
    <description>Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requires conscious knowledge of the unlawful act. A person treated as a mere dummy or front unit, without independent substantive existence, cannot be penalised on that basis absent proof of such knowledge. The cited authority was not successfully distinguished, and the penalty was therefore unsustainable. The assessee&#039;s relief was affirmed and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:30:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133014" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (2) TMI 488 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95955</link>
      <description>Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requires conscious knowledge of the unlawful act. A person treated as a mere dummy or front unit, without independent substantive existence, cannot be penalised on that basis absent proof of such knowledge. The cited authority was not successfully distinguished, and the penalty was therefore unsustainable. The assessee&#039;s relief was affirmed and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95955</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>