<?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 (11) TMI 432 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120361</link>
    <description>Delay in payment of central excise duty under Rule 8A did not attract penalty under Rules 8(4) and 25 of the Central Excise Rules where duty liability and interest were undisputed and the dispute was confined to penalty. The Tribunal held that the penal provisions invoked were inapplicable to a mere delayed payment situation under Rule 8A, so the penalty could not be sustained. The penalty was therefore set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2012 17:14:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=157356" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (11) TMI 432 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120361</link>
      <description>Delay in payment of central excise duty under Rule 8A did not attract penalty under Rules 8(4) and 25 of the Central Excise Rules where duty liability and interest were undisputed and the dispute was confined to penalty. The Tribunal held that the penal provisions invoked were inapplicable to a mere delayed payment situation under Rule 8A, so the penalty could not be sustained. The penalty was therefore set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120361</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>