<?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>2007 (9) TMI 624 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175848</link>
    <description>Section 80 was treated as conferring discretion on the authority to impose a lesser penalty, so the penalty under section 76 was not mandatory in every case. The contention that section 76 required an invariable prescribed penalty was rejected. On that basis, no substantial question of law arose and the appeal failed, resulting in dismissal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Sep 2017 10:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=407968" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (9) TMI 624 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175848</link>
      <description>Section 80 was treated as conferring discretion on the authority to impose a lesser penalty, so the penalty under section 76 was not mandatory in every case. The contention that section 76 required an invariable prescribed penalty was rejected. On that basis, no substantial question of law arose and the appeal failed, resulting in dismissal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175848</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>