<?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 (8) TMI 741 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124928</link>
    <description>Penalty under central excise penal provisions is not warranted where the assessee&#039;s non-payment of duty arose from a bona fide belief that duty was not payable and there is no wilful suppression of facts or mens rea. The unchallenged finding of no wilful suppression was decisive, and the prior settlement of the duty dispute reinforced the absence of deliberate evasion. In those circumstances, the penalty could not be sustained and the revenue challenge to its deletion failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2012 12:19:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=161863" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 741 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124928</link>
      <description>Penalty under central excise penal provisions is not warranted where the assessee&#039;s non-payment of duty arose from a bona fide belief that duty was not payable and there is no wilful suppression of facts or mens rea. The unchallenged finding of no wilful suppression was decisive, and the prior settlement of the duty dispute reinforced the absence of deliberate evasion. In those circumstances, the penalty could not be sustained and the revenue challenge to its deletion failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124928</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>