<?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>2018 (8) TMI 1088 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365616</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Ld. Commissioner&#039;s decision to drop the penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Respondent rectified the duty payment error voluntarily, without any intention to suppress facts or evade duty. Historical practices with the Nasik Unit contributed to the mistake, justifying the non-imposition of penalty. The decision emphasized the need to assess each case&#039;s circumstances accurately to determine liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2018 06:45:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=531451" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (8) TMI 1088 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365616</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Ld. Commissioner&#039;s decision to drop the penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Respondent rectified the duty payment error voluntarily, without any intention to suppress facts or evade duty. Historical practices with the Nasik Unit contributed to the mistake, justifying the non-imposition of penalty. The decision emphasized the need to assess each case&#039;s circumstances accurately to determine liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365616</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>