<?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 836 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155226</link>
    <description>The Court set aside the penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, ruling in favor of the Appellant. The Court found that the show cause notice did not allege fraud, collusion, or willful misstatement to evade duty payment. As the excess duty payment and adjustment were reflected in the monthly returns without suppression of facts, the penalty under Section 11AC was deemed unsustainable. The Appeal was allowed, and the penalty was overturned due to the lack of evidence supporting its imposition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2019 14:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172257" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (12) TMI 836 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155226</link>
      <description>The Court set aside the penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, ruling in favor of the Appellant. The Court found that the show cause notice did not allege fraud, collusion, or willful misstatement to evade duty payment. As the excess duty payment and adjustment were reflected in the monthly returns without suppression of facts, the penalty under Section 11AC was deemed unsustainable. The Appeal was allowed, and the penalty was overturned due to the lack of evidence supporting its imposition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155226</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>