<?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 (10) TMI 373 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114433</link>
    <description>An appellate authority cannot enhance a penalty without prior notice to the assessee where the governing provision makes such notice mandatory. The first proviso to Section 35A(3) required notice of the proposed enhancement before any increase could be ordered, and failure to issue such notice rendered the enhancement without jurisdiction. The penalty enhancement made in the Revenue&#039;s appeal was therefore unsustainable and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 16:19:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151432" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (10) TMI 373 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114433</link>
      <description>An appellate authority cannot enhance a penalty without prior notice to the assessee where the governing provision makes such notice mandatory. The first proviso to Section 35A(3) required notice of the proposed enhancement before any increase could be ordered, and failure to issue such notice rendered the enhancement without jurisdiction. The penalty enhancement made in the Revenue&#039;s appeal was therefore unsustainable and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114433</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>