<?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>2014 (3) TMI 914 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245466</link>
    <description>The Tribunal recalled the ex parte order due to the absence of the Senior Advocate, confirmed the duty demand against the company, and reduced the penalty to Rs. 5 lakhs. The High Court remanded the matter for reconsideration of the penalty amount based on a Supreme Court decision. The Tribunal determined that a 100% penalty under Section 11AC is mandatory once applied, aligning with Supreme Court judgments. Penalties under Section 11AC cannot be reduced once deemed applicable, as per the Tribunal&#039;s decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2014 06:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=350193" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (3) TMI 914 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245466</link>
      <description>The Tribunal recalled the ex parte order due to the absence of the Senior Advocate, confirmed the duty demand against the company, and reduced the penalty to Rs. 5 lakhs. The High Court remanded the matter for reconsideration of the penalty amount based on a Supreme Court decision. The Tribunal determined that a 100% penalty under Section 11AC is mandatory once applied, aligning with Supreme Court judgments. Penalties under Section 11AC cannot be reduced once deemed applicable, as per the Tribunal&#039;s decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245466</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>