<?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 769 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126644</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI upheld the duty demand on packing material not included in the assessable value, amounting to Rs. 44,162. The penalty under Section 11AC was dropped as there was no wilful suppression by the assessees. The Tribunal found that the assessees had voluntarily disclosed the receipt of free packing material to the department and provided all relevant documents, making the charge of suppression unsustainable. Despite not challenging the duty demand, the penalty was not imposed as the department was already aware of the situation. The appeal for penalty retention by the Revenue was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2012 12:28:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163536" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (5) TMI 769 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126644</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI upheld the duty demand on packing material not included in the assessable value, amounting to Rs. 44,162. The penalty under Section 11AC was dropped as there was no wilful suppression by the assessees. The Tribunal found that the assessees had voluntarily disclosed the receipt of free packing material to the department and provided all relevant documents, making the charge of suppression unsustainable. Despite not challenging the duty demand, the penalty was not imposed as the department was already aware of the situation. The appeal for penalty retention by the Revenue was rejected.</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=126644</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>