<?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 (10) TMI 738 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333718</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Appeal, confirming the confiscation of goods, redemption fines, and penalties in a case involving Central Excise duty evasion. The first appellant was found to have removed goods without paying duty, leading to confiscation and penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced fines and penalties but upheld the order. Despite appellants&#039; arguments, citing differing case laws, the Tribunal found precedents supporting the decision. The redemption fine on the third appellant was reduced to Rs. 5,00,000, and the penalty on the first appellant was similarly reduced. The impugned order was upheld with modifications, and the appeals were disposed of accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Nov 2016 11:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=445535" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 738 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333718</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Appeal, confirming the confiscation of goods, redemption fines, and penalties in a case involving Central Excise duty evasion. The first appellant was found to have removed goods without paying duty, leading to confiscation and penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced fines and penalties but upheld the order. Despite appellants&#039; arguments, citing differing case laws, the Tribunal found precedents supporting the decision. The redemption fine on the third appellant was reduced to Rs. 5,00,000, and the penalty on the first appellant was similarly reduced. The impugned order was upheld with modifications, and the appeals were disposed of accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333718</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>