<?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 521 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119050</link>
    <description>Penalty under central excise law was not exigible where the duty demand had already been discharged before issuance of the show cause notice. The Tribunal applied binding precedent holding that payment before notice negatives the basis for penalty, and it reiterated that a subordinate tribunal must follow Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court decisions and cannot take a contrary view by distinguishing settled law. On that reasoning, the penalty orders were unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Jul 2012 16:45:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=156047" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (2) TMI 521 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119050</link>
      <description>Penalty under central excise law was not exigible where the duty demand had already been discharged before issuance of the show cause notice. The Tribunal applied binding precedent holding that payment before notice negatives the basis for penalty, and it reiterated that a subordinate tribunal must follow Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court decisions and cannot take a contrary view by distinguishing settled law. On that reasoning, the penalty orders were unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119050</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>