<?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 (11) TMI 462 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123079</link>
    <description>Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules is sustainable only where the goods are first found liable to confiscation, because the rule applies to a person concerned with such goods and having knowledge or reason to believe that position. In the absence of any finding that the goods were liable to confiscation, the legal foundation for the penalty fails. The penalty was therefore set aside and the applications succeeded, with the penalties annulled.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Sep 2012 11:52:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160050" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (11) TMI 462 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123079</link>
      <description>Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules is sustainable only where the goods are first found liable to confiscation, because the rule applies to a person concerned with such goods and having knowledge or reason to believe that position. In the absence of any finding that the goods were liable to confiscation, the legal foundation for the penalty fails. The penalty was therefore set aside and the applications succeeded, with the penalties annulled.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123079</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>