<?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>2012 (1) TMI 117 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246355</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partially allowed one appeal by setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The penalty was deemed not maintainable due to the absence of intent to evade duty payment. The Tribunal also found the case to fall under Section 11A(2B) of the Act, leading to the setting aside of the penalty. Consequently, one appeal was partially allowed, while the other was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 20 Apr 2014 16:06:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=352976" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (1) TMI 117 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246355</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partially allowed one appeal by setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The penalty was deemed not maintainable due to the absence of intent to evade duty payment. The Tribunal also found the case to fall under Section 11A(2B) of the Act, leading to the setting aside of the penalty. Consequently, one appeal was partially allowed, while the other was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246355</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>