<?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 (5) TMI 767 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126642</link>
    <description>The penalty imposed under Rules 15(1) and 15(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, amounting to Rs. 1 lakh, was contested by the appellants. The Commissioner dropped the demand of Rs. 1,60,11,655 and imposed the penalty, which was challenged by the appellants. The Tribunal found that since the appellants had reversed the credit before the show cause notice, and the demand was dropped, the penalty imposition was unwarranted. Consequently, the penalty was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2012 12:15:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163534" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (5) TMI 767 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126642</link>
      <description>The penalty imposed under Rules 15(1) and 15(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, amounting to Rs. 1 lakh, was contested by the appellants. The Commissioner dropped the demand of Rs. 1,60,11,655 and imposed the penalty, which was challenged by the appellants. The Tribunal found that since the appellants had reversed the credit before the show cause notice, and the demand was dropped, the penalty imposition was unwarranted. Consequently, the penalty was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126642</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>