<?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>2003 (3) TMI 478 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107493</link>
    <description>Penalty was ordered against an appellant without attributing any personal role in the company&#039;s affairs and without showing any personal gain. Because the company was in liquidation and the department had already lodged its claim for duty and penalty in the liquidation proceedings, the facts supported dispensing with pre-deposit. The pre-deposit requirement for the penalty amount was therefore waived, and recovery of the penalty was stayed pending appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2012 18:30:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144510" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (3) TMI 478 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107493</link>
      <description>Penalty was ordered against an appellant without attributing any personal role in the company&#039;s affairs and without showing any personal gain. Because the company was in liquidation and the department had already lodged its claim for duty and penalty in the liquidation proceedings, the facts supported dispensing with pre-deposit. The pre-deposit requirement for the penalty amount was therefore waived, and recovery of the penalty was stayed pending appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107493</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>