<?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 (4) TMI 302 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33431</link>
    <description>Where duty payment is tendered by cheque and the cheque is later honoured, the date of presentation may be treated as the relevant date for credit in the Government treasury. On the facts noted, the cheque was ultimately encashed, no dishonour occurred, and no intention to evade duty was shown. In those circumstances, penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held unwarranted and the impugned order was liable to be set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72063" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (4) TMI 302 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33431</link>
      <description>Where duty payment is tendered by cheque and the cheque is later honoured, the date of presentation may be treated as the relevant date for credit in the Government treasury. On the facts noted, the cheque was ultimately encashed, no dishonour occurred, and no intention to evade duty was shown. In those circumstances, penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held unwarranted and the impugned order was liable to be set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33431</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>