<?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>2012 (2) TMI 103 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210474</link>
    <description>Reduced penalty under the first proviso to Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is available only if the assessee pays the determined duty, interest and reduced penalty within thirty days of communication of the adjudication order. On the stated facts, the assessee continued to contest the demand on merits, did not make timely payment, and did not show any real intention to invoke the statutory concession. The absence of an express recital in the adjudication order did not create an entitlement to the reduced penalty or invalidate the penalty order. The penalty was therefore upheld and no interference was called for.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 13:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=183908" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (2) TMI 103 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210474</link>
      <description>Reduced penalty under the first proviso to Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is available only if the assessee pays the determined duty, interest and reduced penalty within thirty days of communication of the adjudication order. On the stated facts, the assessee continued to contest the demand on merits, did not make timely payment, and did not show any real intention to invoke the statutory concession. The absence of an express recital in the adjudication order did not create an entitlement to the reduced penalty or invalidate the penalty order. The penalty was therefore upheld and no interference was called for.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210474</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>