<?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>2011 (9) TMI 128 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206702</link>
    <description>Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was treated as a mandatory penalty provision for intentional evasion, requiring penalty equal to the duty evaded once its conditions were satisfied. The Tribunal had no discretion to reduce the penalty below that amount, and any such reduction was contrary to law. On that basis, the appellate interference was justified and the order reducing penalty on the assessee was set aside to that extent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2014 16:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=180186" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (9) TMI 128 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206702</link>
      <description>Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was treated as a mandatory penalty provision for intentional evasion, requiring penalty equal to the duty evaded once its conditions were satisfied. The Tribunal had no discretion to reduce the penalty below that amount, and any such reduction was contrary to law. On that basis, the appellate interference was justified and the order reducing penalty on the assessee was set aside to that extent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206702</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>