<?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>2017 (7) TMI 18 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344906</link>
    <description>Rectification addressed an apparent omission in the operative portion concerning the director&#039;s personal penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. As the goods remained liable to confiscation, personal penalty was maintainable. Considering the duty liability and circumstances recorded earlier, the penalty on the director was reduced.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Jul 2017 10:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=478395" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 18 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344906</link>
      <description>Rectification addressed an apparent omission in the operative portion concerning the director&#039;s personal penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. As the goods remained liable to confiscation, personal penalty was maintainable. Considering the duty liability and circumstances recorded earlier, the penalty on the director was reduced.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344906</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>