<?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 (2) TMI 689 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123346</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the confirmed demand for finished goods found short and the confiscation of excess goods. However, the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was set aside based on precedent where it was held that the penalty is not sustainable if duty has been paid before the show cause notice. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with the Tribunal affirming the impugned order except for the penalty imposition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Sep 2012 11:11:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160315" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (2) TMI 689 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123346</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the confirmed demand for finished goods found short and the confiscation of excess goods. However, the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was set aside based on precedent where it was held that the penalty is not sustainable if duty has been paid before the show cause notice. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with the Tribunal affirming the impugned order except for the penalty imposition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123346</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>