<?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>2000 (1) TMI 436 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94690</link>
    <description>Penalty could not be sustained where the show cause notice did not propose it, and the record showed duty had already been paid before notice, giving the appellant a prima facie case. On that basis, the appellate authority&#039;s order was treated as lacking proper application of mind. Unconditional stay was therefore granted, and the appeals were remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for hearing on merits and disposal according to law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Dec 2011 11:03:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131749" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (1) TMI 436 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94690</link>
      <description>Penalty could not be sustained where the show cause notice did not propose it, and the record showed duty had already been paid before notice, giving the appellant a prima facie case. On that basis, the appellate authority&#039;s order was treated as lacking proper application of mind. Unconditional stay was therefore granted, and the appeals were remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for hearing on merits and disposal according to law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94690</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>