<?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>2007 (3) TMI 493 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121260</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld the imposition of a penalty but reduced it significantly to a nominal amount of Rs. 5,000, considering the lack of intentional wrongdoing. The tribunal modified the Commissioner (Appeals) order to reflect adjustments, emphasizing that a token penalty sufficed for the procedural contravention in this case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2012 17:50:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=158254" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (3) TMI 493 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121260</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld the imposition of a penalty but reduced it significantly to a nominal amount of Rs. 5,000, considering the lack of intentional wrongdoing. The tribunal modified the Commissioner (Appeals) order to reflect adjustments, emphasizing that a token penalty sufficed for the procedural contravention in this case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121260</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>