<?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 1389 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241724</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the department&#039;s frivolous appeal against the penalty imposed on the authorised signatory of M/s. S.S. Flavours Pvt. Ltd. for clearing goods without proper documentation or duty payment. The Tribunal found a lack of evidence proving the signatory&#039;s knowledge or intention in the matter, emphasizing the necessity of concrete proof for penalties. It differentiated the case from previous ones cited by the department and concluded that the appeal lacked merit, advising a focus on improving investigation processes rather than pursuing baseless appeals. The judgment clarified that it did not address the duty payment issue, solely focusing on the penalty imposition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Dec 2013 10:10:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=341258" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (12) TMI 1389 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241724</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the department&#039;s frivolous appeal against the penalty imposed on the authorised signatory of M/s. S.S. Flavours Pvt. Ltd. for clearing goods without proper documentation or duty payment. The Tribunal found a lack of evidence proving the signatory&#039;s knowledge or intention in the matter, emphasizing the necessity of concrete proof for penalties. It differentiated the case from previous ones cited by the department and concluded that the appeal lacked merit, advising a focus on improving investigation processes rather than pursuing baseless appeals. The judgment clarified that it did not address the duty payment issue, solely focusing on the penalty imposition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241724</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>