<?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>2011 (9) TMI 869 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245749</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039; decision ruling in favor of the assessee, stating no penalty should be imposed, directing only requantification of duty demand. The Tribunal clarified the final order to address appellant&#039;s doubts about penalty imposition under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, emphasizing no further discussion was needed on the penalty issue. The modification aimed to make the final order clearer on penalty, ensuring the appellant&#039;s concerns were appropriately addressed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Apr 2014 18:43:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351340" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (9) TMI 869 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245749</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039; decision ruling in favor of the assessee, stating no penalty should be imposed, directing only requantification of duty demand. The Tribunal clarified the final order to address appellant&#039;s doubts about penalty imposition under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, emphasizing no further discussion was needed on the penalty issue. The modification aimed to make the final order clearer on penalty, ensuring the appellant&#039;s concerns were appropriately addressed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245749</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>