<?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>2002 (11) TMI 556 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107239</link>
    <description>Penalties imposed on partnership firms and their partners were held unsustainable where the appeals were confined to the penalty component and the underlying manufacture issue was not decided. The Tribunal applied the principle that penalty cannot be imposed simultaneously on a partnership firm and its partners on the same facts. As the controversy on the underlying activity remained unresolved and the penalty basis was defective, the penalties were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2012 11:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144256" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (11) TMI 556 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107239</link>
      <description>Penalties imposed on partnership firms and their partners were held unsustainable where the appeals were confined to the penalty component and the underlying manufacture issue was not decided. The Tribunal applied the principle that penalty cannot be imposed simultaneously on a partnership firm and its partners on the same facts. As the controversy on the underlying activity remained unresolved and the penalty basis was defective, the penalties were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107239</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>