<?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 (8) TMI 215 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346157</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was held unsustainable where the assessee adopted valuation under section 4A on the basis of then-prevailing Tribunal decisions and claimed a bona fide belief. The record showed confusion over the applicable valuation method, and the conduct did not establish deliberate intention to evade duty, which is necessary for imposition of penalty. The penalty was therefore set aside, while the duty demand and interest remained undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Oct 2017 16:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=484595" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 215 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346157</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was held unsustainable where the assessee adopted valuation under section 4A on the basis of then-prevailing Tribunal decisions and claimed a bona fide belief. The record showed confusion over the applicable valuation method, and the conduct did not establish deliberate intention to evade duty, which is necessary for imposition of penalty. The penalty was therefore set aside, while the duty demand and interest remained undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346157</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>