<?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>2005 (1) TMI 170 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53799</link>
    <description>Under the compounded levy regime, penalty for delayed duty payment is not automatically fixed at the full amount of the default; the quantum must be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case, and a uniform rule of equal penalty was rejected. The assessee&#039;s belated payment with interest, coupled with financial hardship, justified a reduced penalty. A duty remission already allowed to the assessee could also be set off against outstanding duty dues, so the remission amount was properly adjusted. The Revenue&#039;s challenge on both issues failed, and the order reducing penalty and permitting adjustment was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Oct 2010 12:28:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92276" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (1) TMI 170 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53799</link>
      <description>Under the compounded levy regime, penalty for delayed duty payment is not automatically fixed at the full amount of the default; the quantum must be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case, and a uniform rule of equal penalty was rejected. The assessee&#039;s belated payment with interest, coupled with financial hardship, justified a reduced penalty. A duty remission already allowed to the assessee could also be set off against outstanding duty dues, so the remission amount was properly adjusted. The Revenue&#039;s challenge on both issues failed, and the order reducing penalty and permitting adjustment was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53799</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>