<?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 (7) TMI 1107 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104556</link>
    <description>Issuance of a modvatable invoice without prior pre-authentication of the invoice book was treated as a procedural lapse that was curable and, by itself, did not justify penalty. Penalty proceedings initiated nearly two years later were also held unjustified because there was no suppression or misstatement attributable to the appellant. On these facts, the penalty was found unsustainable and was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Feb 2012 15:38:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141595" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (7) TMI 1107 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104556</link>
      <description>Issuance of a modvatable invoice without prior pre-authentication of the invoice book was treated as a procedural lapse that was curable and, by itself, did not justify penalty. Penalty proceedings initiated nearly two years later were also held unjustified because there was no suppression or misstatement attributable to the appellant. On these facts, the penalty was found unsustainable and was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104556</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>