<?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 (12) TMI 1138 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170305</link>
    <description>The appeal was filed against the confirmation of duty demand and penalty imposition for shortages of inputs and finished products. Despite no evidence of clandestine removal, penalties were upheld under relevant rules. The penalty was reduced based on the circumstances, emphasizing the duty to account for items properly. The decision affirmed the original authority&#039;s order, maintaining duty demand and penalties but reducing the penalty amount.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 May 2015 11:05:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=385692" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (12) TMI 1138 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170305</link>
      <description>The appeal was filed against the confirmation of duty demand and penalty imposition for shortages of inputs and finished products. Despite no evidence of clandestine removal, penalties were upheld under relevant rules. The penalty was reduced based on the circumstances, emphasizing the duty to account for items properly. The decision affirmed the original authority&#039;s order, maintaining duty demand and penalties but reducing the penalty amount.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170305</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>