<?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>2001 (6) TMI 553 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99564</link>
    <description>Demand proceedings for central excise duty under Section 11A read with Rules 9 and 49 were invalid where no show cause notice had been issued. The statutory requirement of notice was treated as basic and fundamental to the validity of confirmation of short levy and penalty, and the absence of notice was a defect not capable of cure. An alleged waiver by the assessee did not remove the Department&#039;s obligation to issue notice before proceeding.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 17:58:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136616" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (6) TMI 553 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99564</link>
      <description>Demand proceedings for central excise duty under Section 11A read with Rules 9 and 49 were invalid where no show cause notice had been issued. The statutory requirement of notice was treated as basic and fundamental to the validity of confirmation of short levy and penalty, and the absence of notice was a defect not capable of cure. An alleged waiver by the assessee did not remove the Department&#039;s obligation to issue notice before proceeding.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99564</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>