<?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>2023 (10) TMI 165 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443942</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found that penalties under certain sections and rules for delayed payment of excise duty and use of cenvat credit during the default period were not sustainable due to lack of intent to evade payment. However, a penalty under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 was upheld for delayed duty payment and late filing of returns. The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the impugned order accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Oct 2023 08:16:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=728184" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (10) TMI 165 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443942</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found that penalties under certain sections and rules for delayed payment of excise duty and use of cenvat credit during the default period were not sustainable due to lack of intent to evade payment. However, a penalty under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 was upheld for delayed duty payment and late filing of returns. The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the impugned order accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443942</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>