<?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 144 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237689</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to delete the penalty imposed under Rule 8, as the duty was paid before the notice without any intent to evade payment. The ruling emphasized the importance of disclosing duty liability and timely payment in penalty imposition cases related to economic crimes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Oct 2013 23:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=200096" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (10) TMI 144 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237689</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to delete the penalty imposed under Rule 8, as the duty was paid before the notice without any intent to evade payment. The ruling emphasized the importance of disclosing duty liability and timely payment in penalty imposition cases related to economic crimes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237689</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>