<?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 (5) TMI 494 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116298</link>
    <description>Duty paid before issuance of the show cause notice was treated as regularised, and the lapse of credit under the amended Rule 57H did not disturb that confirmation. Penalty was held unsustainable because the decisive fact was that the duty amount had been discharged within a few weeks of utilisation of credit and before the notice stage, so no continuing non-payment survived when proceedings were initiated. The duty regularisation aspect was sustained, but the penal portion was deleted, giving partial relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Jun 2012 12:06:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153296" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (5) TMI 494 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116298</link>
      <description>Duty paid before issuance of the show cause notice was treated as regularised, and the lapse of credit under the amended Rule 57H did not disturb that confirmation. Penalty was held unsustainable because the decisive fact was that the duty amount had been discharged within a few weeks of utilisation of credit and before the notice stage, so no continuing non-payment survived when proceedings were initiated. The duty regularisation aspect was sustained, but the penal portion was deleted, giving partial relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116298</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>