<?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>2009 (1) TMI 194 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33966</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, restoring the equal penalty imposed under Section 11AC on the respondent firm for duty evasion. The decision was based on the respondents not qualifying for the proviso benefit due to the timing of their duty payment, as they paid part of the duty and interest after the impugned order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72594" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (1) TMI 194 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33966</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, restoring the equal penalty imposed under Section 11AC on the respondent firm for duty evasion. The decision was based on the respondents not qualifying for the proviso benefit due to the timing of their duty payment, as they paid part of the duty and interest after the impugned order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33966</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>