<?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 (9) TMI 1013 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332752</link>
    <description>Where clandestine manufacture and clearance of excisable goods was found, the Tribunal held that the mandatory penalty could not be reduced once the statutory conditions for levy under the excise law were satisfied. The appellate authority&#039;s reduction of the penalty was therefore set aside and the original penalty restored, while the assessee remained entitled to the statutory option of paying 25% of the penalty if the prescribed conditions were fulfilled. The personal penalty on the Director was not interfered with because the record showed his involvement in the clandestine activity, and that finding was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Sep 2016 09:56:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=442735" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 1013 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332752</link>
      <description>Where clandestine manufacture and clearance of excisable goods was found, the Tribunal held that the mandatory penalty could not be reduced once the statutory conditions for levy under the excise law were satisfied. The appellate authority&#039;s reduction of the penalty was therefore set aside and the original penalty restored, while the assessee remained entitled to the statutory option of paying 25% of the penalty if the prescribed conditions were fulfilled. The personal penalty on the Director was not interfered with because the record showed his involvement in the clandestine activity, and that finding was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332752</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>