<?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>2008 (12) TMI 632 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127942</link>
    <description>The Rajasthan High Court in Lucid Colloids Ltd. v. UOI held that interest under sub-rule 8(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, could only be charged at 2% per month or 24% per annum. The appellants were not liable to pay the differential interest amount of Rs. 85,900. They were, however, liable to pay an additional interest amount of Rs. 6,637 due to a calculation error. A penalty of Rs. 1,000 was imposed instead of the initial Rs. 10,000, as the contravention was not with intent to evade duty and considering the mitigating factor of voluntary payment. The impugned order was set aside, except for the specified directions regarding interest and penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Mar 2013 10:24:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164814" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (12) TMI 632 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127942</link>
      <description>The Rajasthan High Court in Lucid Colloids Ltd. v. UOI held that interest under sub-rule 8(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, could only be charged at 2% per month or 24% per annum. The appellants were not liable to pay the differential interest amount of Rs. 85,900. They were, however, liable to pay an additional interest amount of Rs. 6,637 due to a calculation error. A penalty of Rs. 1,000 was imposed instead of the initial Rs. 10,000, as the contravention was not with intent to evade duty and considering the mitigating factor of voluntary payment. The impugned order was set aside, except for the specified directions regarding interest and penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127942</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>