<?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 (12) TMI 778 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153818</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision to reduce the penalty imposed by the Revenue on the respondent to Rs. 10,000 for unaccounted scrap found during a factory visit. The Tribunal found no evidence of intent to evade duty by the respondent and held that they were not liable for any penalty under Section 11AC. The appeal by the Revenue was rejected, and the penalty imposed on the Director was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:31:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170853" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (12) TMI 778 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153818</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision to reduce the penalty imposed by the Revenue on the respondent to Rs. 10,000 for unaccounted scrap found during a factory visit. The Tribunal found no evidence of intent to evade duty by the respondent and held that they were not liable for any penalty under Section 11AC. The appeal by the Revenue was rejected, and the penalty imposed on the Director was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153818</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>