<?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 (11) TMI 298 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204743</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s order reducing the penalty for non-payment of central excise duty by steel ingot manufacturers. The penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, was upheld, as the assessees&#039; retention of collected duty until the show cause notice indicated an intention to evade payment. The department&#039;s appeal was allowed, restoring the original penalty amount.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Jun 2013 11:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=178272" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (11) TMI 298 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204743</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s order reducing the penalty for non-payment of central excise duty by steel ingot manufacturers. The penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, was upheld, as the assessees&#039; retention of collected duty until the show cause notice indicated an intention to evade payment. The department&#039;s appeal was allowed, restoring the original penalty amount.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204743</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>