<?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 (10) TMI 24 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237569</link>
    <description>Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was not leviable where the dispute concerned interpretation and classification of air-conditioning parts. Divergent judicial views and a Board circular showed that the controversy turned on the application of interpretative rules rather than deliberate evasion. A bona fide view in favour of the assessee negatived the element of mens rea required for penalty, and the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Oct 2013 07:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=199976" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (10) TMI 24 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237569</link>
      <description>Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was not leviable where the dispute concerned interpretation and classification of air-conditioning parts. Divergent judicial views and a Board circular showed that the controversy turned on the application of interpretative rules rather than deliberate evasion. A bona fide view in favour of the assessee negatived the element of mens rea required for penalty, and the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237569</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>