<?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>2013 (4) TMI 364 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=225135</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act should not be imposed when the disputed amount and interest are promptly paid before the show cause notice, and there is no evidence of intentional evasion of duty. The decision emphasized the importance of demonstrating intent to evade duty before imposing penalties, ensuring fairness and adherence to legal principles in excise matters.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Nov 2013 11:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=195517" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (4) TMI 364 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=225135</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act should not be imposed when the disputed amount and interest are promptly paid before the show cause notice, and there is no evidence of intentional evasion of duty. The decision emphasized the importance of demonstrating intent to evade duty before imposing penalties, ensuring fairness and adherence to legal principles in excise matters.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=225135</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>