<?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 1027 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173612</link>
    <description>The court held that the Tribunal does not have the power to reduce mandatory penalties under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, based on established precedents. Additionally, the court found that the appellant did not comply with the thirty-day payment requirement for interest under section 11AC, thus disqualifying them from the reduced penalty benefit. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs, affirming the positions favoring the Revenue on both issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Apr 2017 10:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=397885" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (10) TMI 1027 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173612</link>
      <description>The court held that the Tribunal does not have the power to reduce mandatory penalties under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, based on established precedents. Additionally, the court found that the appellant did not comply with the thirty-day payment requirement for interest under section 11AC, thus disqualifying them from the reduced penalty benefit. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs, affirming the positions favoring the Revenue on both issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173612</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>