<?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 (11) TMI 130 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54702</link>
    <description>The appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal, where duty demand was upheld but penalty reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals), was rejected. The tribunal emphasized inferring the intention of the evader for penalty imposition, even if duty was paid post-notice. The decision reflects a more lenient and compassionate approach in fiscal matters, aligning with the evolving stance of the Tribunal towards penalties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Oct 2010 15:55:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=93179" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (11) TMI 130 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54702</link>
      <description>The appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal, where duty demand was upheld but penalty reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals), was rejected. The tribunal emphasized inferring the intention of the evader for penalty imposition, even if duty was paid post-notice. The decision reflects a more lenient and compassionate approach in fiscal matters, aligning with the evolving stance of the Tribunal towards penalties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54702</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>