<?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 (6) TMI 246 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107582</link>
    <description>Personal penalty under Section 11AC was unwarranted where the demand arose from scrutiny of RT-12 returns and the assessee had disclosed the clearances and availed Rule 57AD before the Revenue. On those facts, there was no material of suppression, deliberate short payment, or mala fide intent to evade duty. The dispute turned on interpretation of law rather than concealed transactions. As the statutory precondition for penalty was not established, the penalty was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2012 15:18:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144599" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (6) TMI 246 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107582</link>
      <description>Personal penalty under Section 11AC was unwarranted where the demand arose from scrutiny of RT-12 returns and the assessee had disclosed the clearances and availed Rule 57AD before the Revenue. On those facts, there was no material of suppression, deliberate short payment, or mala fide intent to evade duty. The dispute turned on interpretation of law rather than concealed transactions. As the statutory precondition for penalty was not established, the penalty was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107582</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>