<?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 (6) TMI 455 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123996</link>
    <description>Penalty provisions under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 could not be invoked unless confiscation was ordered or the goods were found liable to confiscation. On the facts, no such order or finding had been recorded, so the penalties were not sustainable. The Tribunal treated that omission as sufficient to recall the earlier order and deleted the penalties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Sep 2017 11:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160953" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (6) TMI 455 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123996</link>
      <description>Penalty provisions under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 could not be invoked unless confiscation was ordered or the goods were found liable to confiscation. On the facts, no such order or finding had been recorded, so the penalties were not sustainable. The Tribunal treated that omission as sufficient to recall the earlier order and deleted the penalties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123996</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>