<?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 (12) TMI 417 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122175</link>
    <description>Interest under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act was held not to apply retrospectively, so it could not be levied for a period before its introduction on 28-5-1995. Where the assessee had initially cleared goods on cost of production, later finalised the assessable value, and voluntarily paid the differential duty, the conduct was treated as bona fide. On that footing, penalty under Section 11AC was also held unsustainable because the facts did not justify penal consequences.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Aug 2012 12:03:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=159164" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (12) TMI 417 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122175</link>
      <description>Interest under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act was held not to apply retrospectively, so it could not be levied for a period before its introduction on 28-5-1995. Where the assessee had initially cleared goods on cost of production, later finalised the assessable value, and voluntarily paid the differential duty, the conduct was treated as bona fide. On that footing, penalty under Section 11AC was also held unsustainable because the facts did not justify penal consequences.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122175</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>