<?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 (4) TMI 1133 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212215</link>
    <description>Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not leviable where the dispute arose from bona fide product classification and the assessee had voluntarily paid duty. On those facts, the matter was treated as a genuine classification dispute rather than suppression or wilful evasion attracting mandatory penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) was therefore justified in setting aside the penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Mar 2013 14:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=185628" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (4) TMI 1133 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212215</link>
      <description>Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not leviable where the dispute arose from bona fide product classification and the assessee had voluntarily paid duty. On those facts, the matter was treated as a genuine classification dispute rather than suppression or wilful evasion attracting mandatory penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) was therefore justified in setting aside the penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212215</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>