<?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>2002 (4) TMI 888 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122440</link>
    <description>Penalty under the Central Excise Rules was not attracted where the assessee voluntarily reversed credit, informed the department, and the record showed no suppression of facts or intention to evade duty. In the absence of the requisite mens rea, the penalty provisions under Rules 57U(6) and 173Q(1)(bb) could not be invoked, and deletion of the penalty was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2012 16:43:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=159425" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (4) TMI 888 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122440</link>
      <description>Penalty under the Central Excise Rules was not attracted where the assessee voluntarily reversed credit, informed the department, and the record showed no suppression of facts or intention to evade duty. In the absence of the requisite mens rea, the penalty provisions under Rules 57U(6) and 173Q(1)(bb) could not be invoked, and deletion of the penalty was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122440</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>