<?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>2001 (10) TMI 138 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50814</link>
    <description>Penalty under Rule 173Q and Section 11AC was treated as mandatory once the statutory conditions were satisfied, and prior payment of duty and interest before the show cause notice did not remove penal liability. However, the adjudicating authority had discretion to calibrate the quantum with reference to the gravity of the offence and the extent of evasion. On those facts, the penalty was upheld in principle but reduced, giving the assessee partial relief on amount only.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 10:10:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89293" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (10) TMI 138 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50814</link>
      <description>Penalty under Rule 173Q and Section 11AC was treated as mandatory once the statutory conditions were satisfied, and prior payment of duty and interest before the show cause notice did not remove penal liability. However, the adjudicating authority had discretion to calibrate the quantum with reference to the gravity of the offence and the extent of evasion. On those facts, the penalty was upheld in principle but reduced, giving the assessee partial relief on amount only.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50814</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>