<?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 (8) TMI 503 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114025</link>
    <description>Where duty is discharged before issuance of the show cause notice, Section 11A(2B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as amended and read with the Larger Bench view relied on, was treated as removing the statutory basis for interest and penalty. On that footing, penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was held not sustainable, and interest under Section 11AB was also treated as not leviable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 May 2012 18:28:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151031" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (8) TMI 503 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114025</link>
      <description>Where duty is discharged before issuance of the show cause notice, Section 11A(2B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as amended and read with the Larger Bench view relied on, was treated as removing the statutory basis for interest and penalty. On that footing, penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was held not sustainable, and interest under Section 11AB was also treated as not leviable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114025</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>