<?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 (12) TMI 319 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95248</link>
    <description>Settlement by the principal noticee company under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme was treated as extending immunity to co-noticees, including directors, where the directors were proceeded against only in that capacity. On that footing, continuation of penalty proceedings against the directors was held unsustainable after the company had already obtained settlement benefit. The penalty on the directors was therefore correctly dropped, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2011 11:55:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132307" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (12) TMI 319 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95248</link>
      <description>Settlement by the principal noticee company under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme was treated as extending immunity to co-noticees, including directors, where the directors were proceeded against only in that capacity. On that footing, continuation of penalty proceedings against the directors was held unsustainable after the company had already obtained settlement benefit. The penalty on the directors was therefore correctly dropped, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95248</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>