<?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 (12) TMI 1291 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241626</link>
    <description>Mandatory penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was held inapplicable where the goods remained lying in the factory and no duty was payable under section 3. The credit had been taken on goods received back under Rule 16(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 and was later reversed with interest after the goods were written off in the books. As no duty liability arose on the facts, the foundation for imposing a mandatory penalty also failed. Revenue&#039;s reliance on authority dealing with penalty after confirmation of demand was found inapposite, and the setting aside of the penalty was upheld in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Dec 2013 09:29:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=341041" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (12) TMI 1291 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241626</link>
      <description>Mandatory penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was held inapplicable where the goods remained lying in the factory and no duty was payable under section 3. The credit had been taken on goods received back under Rule 16(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 and was later reversed with interest after the goods were written off in the books. As no duty liability arose on the facts, the foundation for imposing a mandatory penalty also failed. Revenue&#039;s reliance on authority dealing with penalty after confirmation of demand was found inapposite, and the setting aside of the penalty was upheld in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241626</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>