<?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>2013 (7) TMI 905 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173159</link>
    <description>A Tribunal order reducing penalty to 25% without discussing the rival contentions, relevant facts, applicable provisions, or reasons was held unsustainable. The Delhi HC found that a cryptic reduction of penalty while otherwise confirming the duty demand did not satisfy the standards of a proper adjudicatory order or natural justice. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on merits through a reasoned order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2015 11:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=396421" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (7) TMI 905 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173159</link>
      <description>A Tribunal order reducing penalty to 25% without discussing the rival contentions, relevant facts, applicable provisions, or reasons was held unsustainable. The Delhi HC found that a cryptic reduction of penalty while otherwise confirming the duty demand did not satisfy the standards of a proper adjudicatory order or natural justice. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on merits through a reasoned order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173159</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>