<?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 660 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113684</link>
    <description>The Revenue contested the dropping of a penalty on a partner in an Order-in-Appeal related to duty payment issues. The Commissioner&#039;s decision to drop the penalty on the partner was upheld as the partner was not a party in the appeal. The Revenue&#039;s challenge was deemed not maintainable, leading to the dismissal of their appeal. The Commissioner&#039;s discretion in dropping the penalty due to the firm&#039;s prior payment of duty and penalty was considered legal. Consequently, the impugned order was upheld, and the Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 May 2012 16:26:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150690" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (9) TMI 660 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113684</link>
      <description>The Revenue contested the dropping of a penalty on a partner in an Order-in-Appeal related to duty payment issues. The Commissioner&#039;s decision to drop the penalty on the partner was upheld as the partner was not a party in the appeal. The Revenue&#039;s challenge was deemed not maintainable, leading to the dismissal of their appeal. The Commissioner&#039;s discretion in dropping the penalty due to the firm&#039;s prior payment of duty and penalty was considered legal. Consequently, the impugned order was upheld, and the Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113684</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>