<?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 (9) TMI 1029 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170438</link>
    <description>The penalty imposed under Rule 25 for default in duty payment was reduced from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 20,000 by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to lack of intent to evade duty. The appellant&#039;s financial crisis was considered, leading to the reduction under Rule 27 for each default. Despite the default, the penalty was significantly reduced based on the circumstances, resulting in the appeal being disposed of with the modified penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 May 2015 17:58:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=386164" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (9) TMI 1029 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170438</link>
      <description>The penalty imposed under Rule 25 for default in duty payment was reduced from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 20,000 by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to lack of intent to evade duty. The appellant&#039;s financial crisis was considered, leading to the reduction under Rule 27 for each default. Despite the default, the penalty was significantly reduced based on the circumstances, resulting in the appeal being disposed of with the modified penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170438</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>