<?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 (6) TMI 788 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126481</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, waived penalties, and remanded the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for reconsideration, emphasizing the necessity of proving deliberate intent to evade duty for penalties under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The decision highlighted that penalties are meant for deliberate deception by the assessee, requiring a clear finding of intent to evade duty before imposition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Nov 2012 13:24:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163374" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (6) TMI 788 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126481</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, waived penalties, and remanded the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for reconsideration, emphasizing the necessity of proving deliberate intent to evade duty for penalties under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The decision highlighted that penalties are meant for deliberate deception by the assessee, requiring a clear finding of intent to evade duty before imposition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126481</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>