<?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 (12) TMI 608 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98419</link>
    <description>Penalty under Section 11AC was considered in a context where the duty had already been paid before the show cause notice and the facts did not show an intention to evade payment. The underlying dispute also concerned whether upgrading computers amounted to manufacture. On these facts, penalty was found to be imposable, but the quantum was treated as excessive and was reduced to Rs. 20,000.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:14:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135476" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (12) TMI 608 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98419</link>
      <description>Penalty under Section 11AC was considered in a context where the duty had already been paid before the show cause notice and the facts did not show an intention to evade payment. The underlying dispute also concerned whether upgrading computers amounted to manufacture. On these facts, penalty was found to be imposable, but the quantum was treated as excessive and was reduced to Rs. 20,000.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98419</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>