<?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 531 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125174</link>
    <description>Delayed payment of duty under the Compounded Levy Scheme attracted penalty under Rule 96ZP(3) because the default was admitted, but the Tribunal treated the quantum as requiring proportionality. As the duty and interest had already been paid and the original penalty was found to be excessive, the Tribunal applied its earlier view that penalty should be commensurate with any gain made by the assessee. On that basis, the reduced penalty of Rs. 75,000 was upheld as reasonable and no further interference was called for.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Oct 2012 12:29:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162095" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (6) TMI 531 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125174</link>
      <description>Delayed payment of duty under the Compounded Levy Scheme attracted penalty under Rule 96ZP(3) because the default was admitted, but the Tribunal treated the quantum as requiring proportionality. As the duty and interest had already been paid and the original penalty was found to be excessive, the Tribunal applied its earlier view that penalty should be commensurate with any gain made by the assessee. On that basis, the reduced penalty of Rs. 75,000 was upheld as reasonable and no further interference was called for.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125174</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>