<?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>2008 (1) TMI 296 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30328</link>
    <description>HC held that because the assessee deposited the full duty before issuance of the SCN, only 25% of the duty was leviable as penalty under Section 11AC; the imposition of 100% penalty by lower authorities was illegal. The assessee validly challenged the excessive penalty, and its failure to pay within 30 days of adjudication could not be faulted given the statutory error. The question of law was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, and the appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2025 10:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=68985" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 296 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30328</link>
      <description>HC held that because the assessee deposited the full duty before issuance of the SCN, only 25% of the duty was leviable as penalty under Section 11AC; the imposition of 100% penalty by lower authorities was illegal. The assessee validly challenged the excessive penalty, and its failure to pay within 30 days of adjudication could not be faulted given the statutory error. The question of law was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, and the appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30328</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>