<?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 749 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212176</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed lower than the duty demand confirmed was incorrect. The penalty under Sec.11AC equal to the duty demand confirmed was imposed on the respondent. However, if the respondent had paid the entire duty amount with interest within the stipulated period, they would be eligible for the reduced penalty of 25% of the duty demand confirmed. The option to pay the reduced penalty was not provided in the Commissioner&#039;s order. The appeal of the Revenue was allowed, and the impugned order imposing a lower penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=185589" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (5) TMI 749 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212176</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed lower than the duty demand confirmed was incorrect. The penalty under Sec.11AC equal to the duty demand confirmed was imposed on the respondent. However, if the respondent had paid the entire duty amount with interest within the stipulated period, they would be eligible for the reduced penalty of 25% of the duty demand confirmed. The option to pay the reduced penalty was not provided in the Commissioner&#039;s order. The appeal of the Revenue was allowed, and the impugned order imposing a lower penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212176</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>