<?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 1055 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153806</link>
    <description>Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act cannot be imposed or enhanced unless the show-cause notice specifically alleges that the breach was committed with intent to evade payment of duty. Where the notice refers only to violation of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and omits the statutory allegation of intent to evade, the higher penalty is not sustainable. On that footing, the reduced penalty was upheld and the original higher penalty was not restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:17:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170841" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (1) TMI 1055 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153806</link>
      <description>Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act cannot be imposed or enhanced unless the show-cause notice specifically alleges that the breach was committed with intent to evade payment of duty. Where the notice refers only to violation of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and omits the statutory allegation of intent to evade, the higher penalty is not sustainable. On that footing, the reduced penalty was upheld and the original higher penalty was not restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153806</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>