<?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 1089 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155656</link>
    <description>The Tribunal reinstated the penalty on the respondent under Section 11AC of the Act for suppression of facts with intent to evade Central Excise duty, despite duty payment before the notice. The Tribunal held that once suppression of facts was established, the penalty was mandatory, rejecting the argument that duty payment timing negated the penalty. The department&#039;s appeal was successful in overturning the lower appellate authority&#039;s decision to set aside the penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Sep 2013 14:28:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172686" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (1) TMI 1089 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155656</link>
      <description>The Tribunal reinstated the penalty on the respondent under Section 11AC of the Act for suppression of facts with intent to evade Central Excise duty, despite duty payment before the notice. The Tribunal held that once suppression of facts was established, the penalty was mandatory, rejecting the argument that duty payment timing negated the penalty. The department&#039;s appeal was successful in overturning the lower appellate authority&#039;s decision to set aside the penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155656</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>