<?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 (6) TMI 89 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35412</link>
    <description>Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act is mandatory and co-extensive with the duty determined under Section 11A(2) where non-levy or short-levy arises from fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty; it cannot be reduced below that duty, and criminal mens rea is not required. Payment of part or full duty before issue of show cause notice does not extinguish the statutory liability to penalty, because such payment is only adjusted against the final adjudicated demand and does not avoid determination of duty. The Tribunal&#039;s interference with the mandatory penalty was therefore not sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73999" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (6) TMI 89 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35412</link>
      <description>Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act is mandatory and co-extensive with the duty determined under Section 11A(2) where non-levy or short-levy arises from fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty; it cannot be reduced below that duty, and criminal mens rea is not required. Payment of part or full duty before issue of show cause notice does not extinguish the statutory liability to penalty, because such payment is only adjusted against the final adjudicated demand and does not avoid determination of duty. The Tribunal&#039;s interference with the mandatory penalty was therefore not sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35412</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>