<?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>2008 (1) TMI 675 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123209</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai, upheld the penalty imposed on M/s. KCP Packagings Limited under Rule 8(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for delay in duty payment. The penalty was affirmed after considering the specific wording of the rule and consequences outlined in the proviso. Additionally, a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs under Rule 25(1)(a) for contravention of provisions was deemed appropriate. The Tribunal distinguished a previous case precedent cited by the appellant&#039;s counsel and reduced the penalty to Rs. 1 lakh based on compliance history and case circumstances, ultimately disposing of the appeal and resolving the stay petition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:04:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160179" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 675 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123209</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai, upheld the penalty imposed on M/s. KCP Packagings Limited under Rule 8(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for delay in duty payment. The penalty was affirmed after considering the specific wording of the rule and consequences outlined in the proviso. Additionally, a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs under Rule 25(1)(a) for contravention of provisions was deemed appropriate. The Tribunal distinguished a previous case precedent cited by the appellant&#039;s counsel and reduced the penalty to Rs. 1 lakh based on compliance history and case circumstances, ultimately disposing of the appeal and resolving the stay petition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123209</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>