<?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 (3) TMI 562 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115226</link>
    <description>An appellate authority cannot impose or enhance a penalty without first issuing notice and giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard where the governing proviso requires prior show cause. A fresh penalty under Rule 173Q, introduced in appeal without such notice, was unsustainable because the enhancement requirement in the proviso to Section 35A(3) was not met. The matter was remanded for reconsideration after compliance with natural justice and an opportunity of hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 18:13:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152225" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (3) TMI 562 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115226</link>
      <description>An appellate authority cannot impose or enhance a penalty without first issuing notice and giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard where the governing proviso requires prior show cause. A fresh penalty under Rule 173Q, introduced in appeal without such notice, was unsustainable because the enhancement requirement in the proviso to Section 35A(3) was not met. The matter was remanded for reconsideration after compliance with natural justice and an opportunity of hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115226</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>