<?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 860 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126717</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the order setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 11AC, dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal. The case involved a manufacturer of thermometers who underpaid duty on free replacements or gifts due to a mistaken belief about the value, not deliberate evasion. The Tribunal found the circumstances did not warrant invoking Section 11AC, emphasizing the need to assess each case individually for penalty applicability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2012 18:32:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163607" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (6) TMI 860 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126717</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the order setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 11AC, dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal. The case involved a manufacturer of thermometers who underpaid duty on free replacements or gifts due to a mistaken belief about the value, not deliberate evasion. The Tribunal found the circumstances did not warrant invoking Section 11AC, emphasizing the need to assess each case individually for penalty applicability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126717</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>