<?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 (6) TMI 297 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234472</link>
    <description>For default in complying with the duty payment requirement under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, the appropriate penal provision is the residuary general penalty under Rule 27, not Rule 25. The Tribunal accepted the later High Court view that Rule 25 was not the correct basis for penalty in such a contravention, making penalty under that rule unsustainable. The operative effect is that only the general penalty under Rule 27 could be imposed for the Rule 8 breach.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:12:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=196882" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (6) TMI 297 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234472</link>
      <description>For default in complying with the duty payment requirement under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, the appropriate penal provision is the residuary general penalty under Rule 27, not Rule 25. The Tribunal accepted the later High Court view that Rule 25 was not the correct basis for penalty in such a contravention, making penalty under that rule unsustainable. The operative effect is that only the general penalty under Rule 27 could be imposed for the Rule 8 breach.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234472</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>