<?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 (9) TMI 266 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263598</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the demand of interest and penalty imposed on the appellant in a case involving discrepancies in clearing goods without following proper procedures, leading to a duty demand, interest, and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeal) upheld most of the adjudication order but reduced the penalty amount. The Tribunal found the appellant&#039;s actions were revenue neutral, with no intent to evade duty, and referenced precedents to support its decision. As the Revenue did not appeal the Commissioner&#039;s findings, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, concluding that the demand of interest and penalty was not maintainable due to the voluntary payment of duty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2015 13:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=395992" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (9) TMI 266 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263598</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the demand of interest and penalty imposed on the appellant in a case involving discrepancies in clearing goods without following proper procedures, leading to a duty demand, interest, and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeal) upheld most of the adjudication order but reduced the penalty amount. The Tribunal found the appellant&#039;s actions were revenue neutral, with no intent to evade duty, and referenced precedents to support its decision. As the Revenue did not appeal the Commissioner&#039;s findings, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, concluding that the demand of interest and penalty was not maintainable due to the voluntary payment of duty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263598</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>