<?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>2024 (12) TMI 1731 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467889</link>
    <description>Penalty under Rule 26(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 requires that the person deal with excisable goods known, or reasonably believed, to be liable to confiscation. Where no goods were confiscated and no finding was recorded that the goods were liable to confiscation, the statutory precondition for penalty was absent. On that basis, the penalty could not be sustained and was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2026 20:27:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=895795" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (12) TMI 1731 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467889</link>
      <description>Penalty under Rule 26(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 requires that the person deal with excisable goods known, or reasonably believed, to be liable to confiscation. Where no goods were confiscated and no finding was recorded that the goods were liable to confiscation, the statutory precondition for penalty was absent. On that basis, the penalty could not be sustained and was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467889</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>