<?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 (11) TMI 496 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125009</link>
    <description>A penalty imposed under Section 11AC was not rendered invalid merely because it was described with reference to Rule 25, as Rule 25 operates subject to the Section 11AC penalty regime. The challenge that the levy was a composite and therefore unsustainable penalty failed. However, where the assessee paid 25% of the penalty within 30 days together with duty and interest, the Board circular supported relief and the reduced penalty benefit had to be granted. The penalty order was therefore sustained in principle, but the assessee was entitled to the statutory reduced-payment benefit and the Revenue had no basis for enhancement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:30:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=161939" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (11) TMI 496 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125009</link>
      <description>A penalty imposed under Section 11AC was not rendered invalid merely because it was described with reference to Rule 25, as Rule 25 operates subject to the Section 11AC penalty regime. The challenge that the levy was a composite and therefore unsustainable penalty failed. However, where the assessee paid 25% of the penalty within 30 days together with duty and interest, the Board circular supported relief and the reduced penalty benefit had to be granted. The penalty order was therefore sustained in principle, but the assessee was entitled to the statutory reduced-payment benefit and the Revenue had no basis for enhancement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125009</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>