<?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 (2) TMI 995 - CESTAT, AHEMDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209059</link>
    <description>Penalty under Section 11AC for clandestine removal was sustained in principle because duty and interest were accepted and suppression was established, but the appellate forum extended the statutory option to pay 25% of the penalty within 30 days after the original authority failed to grant that concession. Penalty on the director under Rule 26 was also upheld on the basis of his role in facilitating suppression, but the amount was reduced as excessive in the circumstances. Duty and interest therefore remained confirmed, the manufacturing unit retained the concessional payment option, and the director&#039;s penalty was scaled down.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Jul 2013 12:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=182512" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (2) TMI 995 - CESTAT, AHEMDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209059</link>
      <description>Penalty under Section 11AC for clandestine removal was sustained in principle because duty and interest were accepted and suppression was established, but the appellate forum extended the statutory option to pay 25% of the penalty within 30 days after the original authority failed to grant that concession. Penalty on the director under Rule 26 was also upheld on the basis of his role in facilitating suppression, but the amount was reduced as excessive in the circumstances. Duty and interest therefore remained confirmed, the manufacturing unit retained the concessional payment option, and the director&#039;s penalty was scaled down.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209059</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>