<?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 (1) TMI 1029 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153596</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s order imposing a penalty under Section 11AC for incorrect valuation, resulting in a duty demand. The Tribunal noted the absence of intention to evade duty, as the duty paid was available as credit to the recipient unit within the same company. The penalty was deemed unjustified, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief in accordance with the law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Jun 2018 08:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170631" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (1) TMI 1029 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153596</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s order imposing a penalty under Section 11AC for incorrect valuation, resulting in a duty demand. The Tribunal noted the absence of intention to evade duty, as the duty paid was available as credit to the recipient unit within the same company. The penalty was deemed unjustified, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief in accordance with the law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153596</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>