<?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 (6) TMI 7 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380930</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, without disturbing the duty demand or interest. The Tribunal found that there was no evidence of suppression of facts to evade duty payment, considering the omission as a bona fide mistake during a transitional period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Jun 2019 07:53:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=573526" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (6) TMI 7 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380930</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, without disturbing the duty demand or interest. The Tribunal found that there was no evidence of suppression of facts to evade duty payment, considering the omission as a bona fide mistake during a transitional period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380930</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>