<?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>2005 (1) TMI 444 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114923</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority lacked the authority to make insertions in the order, overturning the Commissioner&#039;s decision to enhance the penalty through a corrigendum. The corrigendum was deemed invalid for not following principles of natural justice. The Tribunal confirmed the original penalty of Rs. 2,000 imposed under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994, setting aside the increased penalty of Rs. 81,400.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 13:18:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151922" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (1) TMI 444 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114923</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority lacked the authority to make insertions in the order, overturning the Commissioner&#039;s decision to enhance the penalty through a corrigendum. The corrigendum was deemed invalid for not following principles of natural justice. The Tribunal confirmed the original penalty of Rs. 2,000 imposed under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994, setting aside the increased penalty of Rs. 81,400.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114923</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>