<?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>2010 (2) TMI 1022 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153595</link>
    <description>The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the respondents for dropping penalties under Section 11AC of the Act. The Revenue argued for penal action citing relevant case law. However, as no evidence of evasion or fraudulent activities was found, penalties were dropped. The appeals were dismissed, and the impugned orders dropping the penalties were upheld as there were no grounds under Section 11AC to impose penalties on the respondent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Jul 2013 14:48:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170630" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (2) TMI 1022 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153595</link>
      <description>The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the respondents for dropping penalties under Section 11AC of the Act. The Revenue argued for penal action citing relevant case law. However, as no evidence of evasion or fraudulent activities was found, penalties were dropped. The appeals were dismissed, and the impugned orders dropping the penalties were upheld as there were no grounds under Section 11AC to impose penalties on the respondent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153595</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>