<?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>2004 (11) TMI 402 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114702</link>
    <description>A personal penalty was challenged on the basis that duty had been tendered by cheque before the due date, the cheque was presented in time, and encashment was delayed only because of an unforeseen banking circumstance. The settled principle applied was that the relevant date is the date of presentation of the cheque, with later clearance relating back to that date. In the absence of mala fides, the penalty was found unsustainable and was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 May 2012 11:11:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151701" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (11) TMI 402 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114702</link>
      <description>A personal penalty was challenged on the basis that duty had been tendered by cheque before the due date, the cheque was presented in time, and encashment was delayed only because of an unforeseen banking circumstance. The settled principle applied was that the relevant date is the date of presentation of the cheque, with later clearance relating back to that date. In the absence of mala fides, the penalty was found unsustainable and was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114702</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>