<?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 (6) TMI 610 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100164</link>
    <description>Penalty under Rule 57-I(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is not imposable where the issue has been the subject of differing Tribunal views, because the rule contemplates fraud, wilful misstatement, collusion, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty. On that basis, although the duty demand was conceded, the penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:40:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137215" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (6) TMI 610 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100164</link>
      <description>Penalty under Rule 57-I(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is not imposable where the issue has been the subject of differing Tribunal views, because the rule contemplates fraud, wilful misstatement, collusion, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty. On that basis, although the duty demand was conceded, the penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100164</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>