<?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 (6) TMI 228 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117589</link>
    <description>Duty quantified and confirmed by the adjudicating authority may amount to determination under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 even if the operative order does not expressly cite that provision. On that basis, the view that no duty had been determined under Section 11A(2) was incorrect, and the applicability of penalty under Section 11AC had to be examined afresh. The matter was remitted for reconsideration of penalty in light of the duty determination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 24 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2012 12:17:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154586" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (6) TMI 228 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117589</link>
      <description>Duty quantified and confirmed by the adjudicating authority may amount to determination under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 even if the operative order does not expressly cite that provision. On that basis, the view that no duty had been determined under Section 11A(2) was incorrect, and the applicability of penalty under Section 11AC had to be examined afresh. The matter was remitted for reconsideration of penalty in light of the duty determination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 24 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117589</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>