<?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>2010 (10) TMI 989 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170265</link>
    <description>The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty imposed on the Director of a manufacturing unit for clandestine removal of goods, citing lack of evidence linking the Director to the offense. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing the necessity of establishing individual culpability before penalizing directors or officers of companies. The appeal by the Revenue against the penalty&#039;s setting aside was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 May 2015 12:51:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=385621" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (10) TMI 989 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170265</link>
      <description>The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty imposed on the Director of a manufacturing unit for clandestine removal of goods, citing lack of evidence linking the Director to the offense. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing the necessity of establishing individual culpability before penalizing directors or officers of companies. The appeal by the Revenue against the penalty&#039;s setting aside was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170265</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>