<?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 (7) TMI 1047 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128149</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision of the lower appellate authority and dismissed the appeal in favor of the respondent. It concluded that since there was a conclusive finding of no mens rea in short-paying duty, Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act did not apply in this case. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of mens rea in invoking the penalty provision and highlighted that deliberate deception with intent to evade duty was necessary for the application of Section 11AC.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Mar 2013 15:02:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165020" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 1047 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128149</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision of the lower appellate authority and dismissed the appeal in favor of the respondent. It concluded that since there was a conclusive finding of no mens rea in short-paying duty, Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act did not apply in this case. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of mens rea in invoking the penalty provision and highlighted that deliberate deception with intent to evade duty was necessary for the application of Section 11AC.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128149</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>