<?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>2009 (4) TMI 669 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126185</link>
    <description>A mere delay of a few days in filing an ER-I return attracted only the specific penalty provision governing delayed returns, with the maximum penalty confined to Rs. 5,000. Rule 25 was not applicable because none of its conditions were satisfied by the single instance of late filing. The appellate reduction of the penalty to Rs. 2,000 was therefore upheld, and enhancement to Rs. 10,000 was held unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Nov 2012 10:56:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163084" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (4) TMI 669 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126185</link>
      <description>A mere delay of a few days in filing an ER-I return attracted only the specific penalty provision governing delayed returns, with the maximum penalty confined to Rs. 5,000. Rule 25 was not applicable because none of its conditions were satisfied by the single instance of late filing. The appellate reduction of the penalty to Rs. 2,000 was therefore upheld, and enhancement to Rs. 10,000 was held unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126185</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>