<?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>2019 (3) TMI 785 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376764</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner&#039;s decision to set aside the penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant&#039;s payment of duty and interest before the notice, invoking Section 11A(2), was deemed sufficient, as there was no evidence of suppression. The Tribunal found the penalty unwarranted due to the disputed interpretation of the assessable value issue pending before the apex court. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed, affirming the Commissioner&#039;s order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Mar 2019 08:13:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=563029" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (3) TMI 785 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376764</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner&#039;s decision to set aside the penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant&#039;s payment of duty and interest before the notice, invoking Section 11A(2), was deemed sufficient, as there was no evidence of suppression. The Tribunal found the penalty unwarranted due to the disputed interpretation of the assessable value issue pending before the apex court. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed, affirming the Commissioner&#039;s order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376764</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>