<?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>2010 (4) TMI 483 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78408</link>
    <description>Penalty under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be sustained for a default occurring before the provision came into force on 1 May 1998. The jurisdictional objection concerned the very applicability of the penal clause, so it was not treated as waived by failure to raise it earlier and could be taken at the appellate stage. On that basis, the penalty was held not imposable against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:38:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=116531" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (4) TMI 483 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78408</link>
      <description>Penalty under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be sustained for a default occurring before the provision came into force on 1 May 1998. The jurisdictional objection concerned the very applicability of the penal clause, so it was not treated as waived by failure to raise it earlier and could be taken at the appellate stage. On that basis, the penalty was held not imposable against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78408</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>