<?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 (12) TMI 602 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103844</link>
    <description>Excess credit under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 attracted penalty where the credit was not only taken but also actually utilised for payment of duty on clearances. On those facts, the wrongful credit was treated as having been put to use, making penalty sustainable. The amount of penalty was nevertheless reduced because the quantum imposed was considered excessive in the circumstances. The document therefore states that liability to penalty was maintained, while the penalty was moderated on facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:44:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140883" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (12) TMI 602 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103844</link>
      <description>Excess credit under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 attracted penalty where the credit was not only taken but also actually utilised for payment of duty on clearances. On those facts, the wrongful credit was treated as having been put to use, making penalty sustainable. The amount of penalty was nevertheless reduced because the quantum imposed was considered excessive in the circumstances. The document therefore states that liability to penalty was maintained, while the penalty was moderated on facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103844</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>