<?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 (8) TMI 920 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128203</link>
    <description>Penalty could not be imposed mechanically where the record disclosed no material showing intention to evade duty, and the reduced duty demand was no longer in dispute. The tribunal held that the penalty question required fresh consideration by the adjudicating authority, with the assessee given an opportunity of hearing and a reasoned decision on both leviability and quantum. The penalty issue was therefore remanded for fresh adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:00:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165074" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 920 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128203</link>
      <description>Penalty could not be imposed mechanically where the record disclosed no material showing intention to evade duty, and the reduced duty demand was no longer in dispute. The tribunal held that the penalty question required fresh consideration by the adjudicating authority, with the assessee given an opportunity of hearing and a reasoned decision on both leviability and quantum. The penalty issue was therefore remanded for fresh adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128203</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>