<?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 (4) TMI 493 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205506</link>
    <description>The Tribunal rejected the Department&#039;s appeal against a penalty of Rs. 500 for depositing excise duty under the wrong head, stating that the minimum penalty of Rs. 10,000 under Rule 25 was not applicable. The Tribunal found the appeal on a trivial issue unjustified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2013 12:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=179014" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (4) TMI 493 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205506</link>
      <description>The Tribunal rejected the Department&#039;s appeal against a penalty of Rs. 500 for depositing excise duty under the wrong head, stating that the minimum penalty of Rs. 10,000 under Rule 25 was not applicable. The Tribunal found the appeal on a trivial issue unjustified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205506</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>