<?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 (11) TMI 806 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155283</link>
    <description>The penalty imposed on the respondent for delay in paying duty was appealed against. The Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the penalty, but the original authority&#039;s decision was restored. The penalty under Rule 25 was reduced to Rs. 5000 under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with the delay in payment not being deemed as involving suppression or misstatement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2013 18:44:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172314" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (11) TMI 806 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155283</link>
      <description>The penalty imposed on the respondent for delay in paying duty was appealed against. The Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the penalty, but the original authority&#039;s decision was restored. The penalty under Rule 25 was reduced to Rs. 5000 under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with the delay in payment not being deemed as involving suppression or misstatement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155283</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>