<?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>2015 (4) TMI 995 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259114</link>
    <description>The tribunal held that the immunity under the proviso to Section 11A(2) does not apply to individuals penalized under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on the co-appellant was reduced to Rs. 25,000/- as the main appellant had already fulfilled duty, interest, and 25% penalty obligations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2015 06:10:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=383384" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (4) TMI 995 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259114</link>
      <description>The tribunal held that the immunity under the proviso to Section 11A(2) does not apply to individuals penalized under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on the co-appellant was reduced to Rs. 25,000/- as the main appellant had already fulfilled duty, interest, and 25% penalty obligations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259114</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>