<?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>2016 (2) TMI 66 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271361</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, emphasizing the necessity of fraud or intentional evasion of duty for such penalties. The Tribunal concluded that as the duty was not determined following due process, the penalty could not be imposed. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, highlighting the legal requirements for penalty imposition under the Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Oct 2016 14:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=415241" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 66 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271361</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, emphasizing the necessity of fraud or intentional evasion of duty for such penalties. The Tribunal concluded that as the duty was not determined following due process, the penalty could not be imposed. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, highlighting the legal requirements for penalty imposition under the Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271361</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>