<?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 (11) TMI 1038 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351159</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalty of Rs. 4,00,000 imposed on the Managing Director of a company for non-payment of Central Excise duty collected from customers. The penalty was dropped due to the lack of malafide intent and unsustainable grounds under Rule 8(3A) and Rule 26. The Tribunal found no evidence to support the penalty and allowed the appeal, emphasizing the absence of mens rea and the unsustainable nature of the impugned order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Dec 2017 12:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=497059" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 1038 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351159</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalty of Rs. 4,00,000 imposed on the Managing Director of a company for non-payment of Central Excise duty collected from customers. The penalty was dropped due to the lack of malafide intent and unsustainable grounds under Rule 8(3A) and Rule 26. The Tribunal found no evidence to support the penalty and allowed the appeal, emphasizing the absence of mens rea and the unsustainable nature of the impugned order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351159</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>