<?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>2006 (2) TMI 348 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117433</link>
    <description>Penalty under Rule 173Q was treated as inadmissible where the original authority had not imposed any such penalty, the assessments were still provisional, and duty had been paid before finalisation and before the show-cause notice. The appellate authority could not, on its own, introduce and impose penalty in the absence of a grievance from the Revenue on that issue. The penalty order was therefore set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Jun 2012 16:13:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154430" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (2) TMI 348 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117433</link>
      <description>Penalty under Rule 173Q was treated as inadmissible where the original authority had not imposed any such penalty, the assessments were still provisional, and duty had been paid before finalisation and before the show-cause notice. The appellate authority could not, on its own, introduce and impose penalty in the absence of a grievance from the Revenue on that issue. The penalty order was therefore set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117433</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>