<?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 (5) TMI 519 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209884</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner(Appeals) order and restored the Deputy Commissioner&#039;s Order-In-Original, allowing the Revenue&#039;s appeal. It was determined that separate penalties can indeed be imposed on the Director for their role in the fraudulent activity of availing Cenvat Credit through bogus invoices without receiving any material, disagreeing with the Commissioner(Appeals) on the imposition of penalties on both the company and its Director.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Jul 2013 18:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=183326" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (5) TMI 519 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209884</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner(Appeals) order and restored the Deputy Commissioner&#039;s Order-In-Original, allowing the Revenue&#039;s appeal. It was determined that separate penalties can indeed be imposed on the Director for their role in the fraudulent activity of availing Cenvat Credit through bogus invoices without receiving any material, disagreeing with the Commissioner(Appeals) on the imposition of penalties on both the company and its Director.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209884</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>