<?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 (9) TMI 451 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366715</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed on the transporter under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, due to the lack of documents proving duty payment for the seized goods. However, the excessive penalty of Rs. 10,00,000 was reduced to Rs. 5,00,000, aligning it more closely with the duty liability amount.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Sep 2018 08:14:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=533693" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (9) TMI 451 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366715</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed on the transporter under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, due to the lack of documents proving duty payment for the seized goods. However, the excessive penalty of Rs. 10,00,000 was reduced to Rs. 5,00,000, aligning it more closely with the duty liability amount.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366715</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>