<?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 556 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271851</link>
    <description>Penalty was held unsustainable where the assessee had disclosed clearance of prototype vehicles, claimed exemption bona fide, and paid the duty and interest before the show-cause notice. The record showed no mala fide intent, suppression of facts, or misdeclaration, and the dispute was confined to differential duty already discharged. On those facts, the basis for penalty was not made out, and the order setting aside penalty was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Nov 2016 15:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=416920" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 556 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271851</link>
      <description>Penalty was held unsustainable where the assessee had disclosed clearance of prototype vehicles, claimed exemption bona fide, and paid the duty and interest before the show-cause notice. The record showed no mala fide intent, suppression of facts, or misdeclaration, and the dispute was confined to differential duty already discharged. On those facts, the basis for penalty was not made out, and the order setting aside penalty was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271851</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>