<?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 (12) TMI 88 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335443</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the demand for unpaid duty amounting to &amp;amp;8377; 18,88,152 against the appellants, small scale units, for incorrectly availing outdated exemptions despite changes in duty rates. The claim of bonafide mistake was rejected, penalties under Section 11AC were set aside, and the penalty under Rule 25 was reduced to &amp;amp;8377; 1,00,000. The judgment emphasizes the importance of compliance with duty exemptions, rectifying mistaken claims, and the correct application of penalties in excise duty cases.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2016 13:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450330" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 88 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335443</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the demand for unpaid duty amounting to &amp;amp;8377; 18,88,152 against the appellants, small scale units, for incorrectly availing outdated exemptions despite changes in duty rates. The claim of bonafide mistake was rejected, penalties under Section 11AC were set aside, and the penalty under Rule 25 was reduced to &amp;amp;8377; 1,00,000. The judgment emphasizes the importance of compliance with duty exemptions, rectifying mistaken claims, and the correct application of penalties in excise duty cases.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335443</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>