<?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 670 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126186</link>
    <description>Rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 did not prescribe a minimum mandatory penalty of Rs. 10,000 for delayed filing of returns. The Tribunal noted that the Larger Bench had already rejected that interpretation and found, on the facts, no legal basis to interfere with the reduced penalty imposed by the original authority. The departmental challenge therefore failed, and the penalty of Rs. 500 was not shown to be illegal or inadequate in law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Nov 2012 10:57:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163085" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (4) TMI 670 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126186</link>
      <description>Rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 did not prescribe a minimum mandatory penalty of Rs. 10,000 for delayed filing of returns. The Tribunal noted that the Larger Bench had already rejected that interpretation and found, on the facts, no legal basis to interfere with the reduced penalty imposed by the original authority. The departmental challenge therefore failed, and the penalty of Rs. 500 was not shown to be illegal or inadequate in law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126186</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>