<?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>2021 (8) TMI 649 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411071</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the extended period demand and penalties imposed. It emphasized the debatable nature of the issue and the absence of malafide intent on the appellant&#039;s part. The Tribunal modified the penalties, reducing them based on specific demands confirmed for different periods. Ultimately, the penalties were entirely set aside due to the appellant&#039;s compliance with regular filing and record-keeping.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2021 09:01:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=652976" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (8) TMI 649 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411071</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the extended period demand and penalties imposed. It emphasized the debatable nature of the issue and the absence of malafide intent on the appellant&#039;s part. The Tribunal modified the penalties, reducing them based on specific demands confirmed for different periods. Ultimately, the penalties were entirely set aside due to the appellant&#039;s compliance with regular filing and record-keeping.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411071</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>