<?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>2004 (1) TMI 422 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110620</link>
    <description>A composite show cause notice covering duty demand, confiscation and penalty was analysed on the footing that the duty component depended on issuance by the Collector under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as applicable at the material time. Confiscation and penalty were treated as resting on a separate statutory basis under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 12 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, so their validity did not necessarily depend on the duty demand portion. Earlier Tribunal views were found to be conflicting on whether defect in the duty demand invalidates the entire notice, and the issue was referred to a Larger Bench for authoritative resolution.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:48:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147636" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (1) TMI 422 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110620</link>
      <description>A composite show cause notice covering duty demand, confiscation and penalty was analysed on the footing that the duty component depended on issuance by the Collector under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as applicable at the material time. Confiscation and penalty were treated as resting on a separate statutory basis under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 12 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, so their validity did not necessarily depend on the duty demand portion. Earlier Tribunal views were found to be conflicting on whether defect in the duty demand invalidates the entire notice, and the issue was referred to a Larger Bench for authoritative resolution.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110620</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>