<?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 (1) TMI 696 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99432</link>
    <description>Penalty for an alleged procedural lapse was unsustainable where the assessee maintained RG-1 and return records for goods transferred for retesting and regularly forwarded those records to the department. As the prescribed procedure was substantially complied with and the department had been kept informed on a monthly basis, the basis for invoking penalty was not established. The penalty recovery was stayed and the impugned order was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:07:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136484" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (1) TMI 696 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99432</link>
      <description>Penalty for an alleged procedural lapse was unsustainable where the assessee maintained RG-1 and return records for goods transferred for retesting and regularly forwarded those records to the department. As the prescribed procedure was substantially complied with and the department had been kept informed on a monthly basis, the basis for invoking penalty was not established. The penalty recovery was stayed and the impugned order was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99432</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>