<?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 798 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153964</link>
    <description>The Tribunal overturned the order-in-appeal and reinstated the penalty imposed under Rule 25(1)(a) of the Central Excise Rules by the Assistant Commissioner. The penalty was deemed appropriate due to the default in discharging monthly duty liability, emphasizing the strict adherence to payment deadlines to avoid penalties. The decision highlighted the significance of complying with duty payment obligations within the specified time frame to prevent adverse legal consequences.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Aug 2013 12:40:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170998" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (12) TMI 798 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153964</link>
      <description>The Tribunal overturned the order-in-appeal and reinstated the penalty imposed under Rule 25(1)(a) of the Central Excise Rules by the Assistant Commissioner. The penalty was deemed appropriate due to the default in discharging monthly duty liability, emphasizing the strict adherence to payment deadlines to avoid penalties. The decision highlighted the significance of complying with duty payment obligations within the specified time frame to prevent adverse legal consequences.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153964</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>