<?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>2002 (4) TMI 58 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46205</link>
    <description>Penalty cannot be sustained where the Tribunal has found the extended period of limitation unavailable to the Revenue, set aside the duty demand, and recorded that there was no motive or gain from evasion. On those findings, the basis for penal consequences disappeared, because the penalty was inconsistent with both the limitation ruling and the absence of any evasion benefit. The Supreme Court held that the penalty was not sustainable and allowed the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Jan 2015 12:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84731" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (4) TMI 58 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46205</link>
      <description>Penalty cannot be sustained where the Tribunal has found the extended period of limitation unavailable to the Revenue, set aside the duty demand, and recorded that there was no motive or gain from evasion. On those findings, the basis for penal consequences disappeared, because the penalty was inconsistent with both the limitation ruling and the absence of any evasion benefit. The Supreme Court held that the penalty was not sustainable and allowed the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46205</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>