<?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>2005 (4) TMI 381 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115351</link>
    <description>Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requires proof of conscious involvement or knowledge that the goods were liable to duty and had been dealt with in a manner attracting penalty. Mere purchase of goods from the open market through brokers, without central excise documents or in small quantity, was not enough to infer such knowledge in the absence of supporting material. On that basis, the penalty was held not sustainable and was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 May 2012 12:59:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152350" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (4) TMI 381 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115351</link>
      <description>Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requires proof of conscious involvement or knowledge that the goods were liable to duty and had been dealt with in a manner attracting penalty. Mere purchase of goods from the open market through brokers, without central excise documents or in small quantity, was not enough to infer such knowledge in the absence of supporting material. On that basis, the penalty was held not sustainable and was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115351</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>