<?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>2002 (1) TMI 744 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101374</link>
    <description>A prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit arose because penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(bbb) required a willful entry of wrong or incorrect particulars in an invoice with intent to facilitate inadmissible duty credit, and the challenged order recorded no finding of such intent against the applicants. In the absence of that statutory ingredient, the applicants were treated as having a strong case, and stay of recovery of the penalty was granted together with waiver of pre-deposit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:43:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138424" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (1) TMI 744 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101374</link>
      <description>A prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit arose because penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(bbb) required a willful entry of wrong or incorrect particulars in an invoice with intent to facilitate inadmissible duty credit, and the challenged order recorded no finding of such intent against the applicants. In the absence of that statutory ingredient, the applicants were treated as having a strong case, and stay of recovery of the penalty was granted together with waiver of pre-deposit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101374</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>