<?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 (5) TMI 373 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108501</link>
    <description>Penalty under the Central Excise Rules was examined only on quantum, as the shortage of goods and the levy of penalty on merits were not disputed. The traders had sold goods without bills, but the record did not show duty evasion, and the buyer had not claimed Modvat credit. Those circumstances justified a lenient view on punishment, leading to reduction of the penalty from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10,000, with adjustment of the pre-deposit already made.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Mar 2012 18:38:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145518" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (5) TMI 373 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108501</link>
      <description>Penalty under the Central Excise Rules was examined only on quantum, as the shortage of goods and the levy of penalty on merits were not disputed. The traders had sold goods without bills, but the record did not show duty evasion, and the buyer had not claimed Modvat credit. Those circumstances justified a lenient view on punishment, leading to reduction of the penalty from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10,000, with adjustment of the pre-deposit already made.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108501</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>