<?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 (9) TMI 471 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107982</link>
    <description>Delayed payment of fortnightly excise duty instalments was treated as a breach of Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and as conduct capable of attracting penalty under Rule 25(1)(a) for contravention of the rules. Payment of duty before issuance of the show cause notice did not, by itself, eliminate penal liability. The text also notes that where the delay was largely minor and occurred mainly in one instance, the penalty amount could be moderated on the facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:07:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144999" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (9) TMI 471 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107982</link>
      <description>Delayed payment of fortnightly excise duty instalments was treated as a breach of Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and as conduct capable of attracting penalty under Rule 25(1)(a) for contravention of the rules. Payment of duty before issuance of the show cause notice did not, by itself, eliminate penal liability. The text also notes that where the delay was largely minor and occurred mainly in one instance, the penalty amount could be moderated on the facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107982</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>