<?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 (2) TMI 1299 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197231</link>
    <description>Once penalty is attracted under Section 11AC, the appellate authority cannot arbitrarily reduce the statutory penalty without a lawful basis in the statute. The reduction made by the Commissioner (Appeals) was unsustainable because no finding was recorded that Section 11AC was inapplicable, and no other statutory basis was identified for imposing a reduced penalty. The reduction was therefore held impermissible and was set aside in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Dec 2017 18:54:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=501846" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 1299 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197231</link>
      <description>Once penalty is attracted under Section 11AC, the appellate authority cannot arbitrarily reduce the statutory penalty without a lawful basis in the statute. The reduction made by the Commissioner (Appeals) was unsustainable because no finding was recorded that Section 11AC was inapplicable, and no other statutory basis was identified for imposing a reduced penalty. The reduction was therefore held impermissible and was set aside in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197231</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>