<?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 (7) TMI 439 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97152</link>
    <description>Wrong availment of Modvat credit on fake documents issued by fictitious firms justified penal action, because the record showed serious established irregularities and the Managing Director admitted the lapse. The voluntary debit of a substantial amount was treated as a mitigating factor only for the quantum of penalty, not as a basis to negate liability. The penalties were therefore upheld in principle but substantially reduced, while the duty demand remained confirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Jan 2012 12:10:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134210" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (7) TMI 439 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97152</link>
      <description>Wrong availment of Modvat credit on fake documents issued by fictitious firms justified penal action, because the record showed serious established irregularities and the Managing Director admitted the lapse. The voluntary debit of a substantial amount was treated as a mitigating factor only for the quantum of penalty, not as a basis to negate liability. The penalties were therefore upheld in principle but substantially reduced, while the duty demand remained confirmed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97152</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>