<?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>2004 (3) TMI 137 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52734</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the dropping of penalty under Rule 209A, citing lack of evidence for duty demands. The appellants were granted a refund for the deposited amount as the Show Cause Notice was dropped. The Commissioner&#039;s decision to drop penal proceedings was upheld due to the absence of duty confirmation, despite the Revenue&#039;s invocation of Rule 209A for penalty imposition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Oct 2010 14:53:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91211" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (3) TMI 137 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52734</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the dropping of penalty under Rule 209A, citing lack of evidence for duty demands. The appellants were granted a refund for the deposited amount as the Show Cause Notice was dropped. The Commissioner&#039;s decision to drop penal proceedings was upheld due to the absence of duty confirmation, despite the Revenue&#039;s invocation of Rule 209A for penalty imposition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52734</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>