<?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>2006 (2) TMI 446 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117918</link>
    <description>Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act is sustainable only where fraud, collusion, suppression of facts or misstatement with intent to evade duty is established. Mere payment of duty before issuance of the show-cause notice, even after departmental detection, does not by itself prove those statutory ingredients. On the stated facts, interest under Section 11AB was also not justified, and the setting aside of both penalty and interest was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:33:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154915" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (2) TMI 446 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117918</link>
      <description>Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act is sustainable only where fraud, collusion, suppression of facts or misstatement with intent to evade duty is established. Mere payment of duty before issuance of the show-cause notice, even after departmental detection, does not by itself prove those statutory ingredients. On the stated facts, interest under Section 11AB was also not justified, and the setting aside of both penalty and interest was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117918</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>