<?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 (10) TMI 462 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118878</link>
    <description>Failure to pay the whole monthly duty by the prescribed due date triggered liability to interest from the day after default and attracted penalty under the scheme. Partial payment did not avoid the charging provision, because the relevant default was non-payment of the entire duty payable for the month by the 10th. As the balance duty was paid only later, the default continued and the consequence of interest and penalty remained operative.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2012 14:28:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=155875" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 462 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118878</link>
      <description>Failure to pay the whole monthly duty by the prescribed due date triggered liability to interest from the day after default and attracted penalty under the scheme. Partial payment did not avoid the charging provision, because the relevant default was non-payment of the entire duty payable for the month by the 10th. As the balance duty was paid only later, the default continued and the consequence of interest and penalty remained operative.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118878</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>