<?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 (4) TMI 428 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119628</link>
    <description>Where an earlier show cause notice and adjudication order finally dealt with duty recovery without proposing or confirming penalty, the department could not later reopen the same matter by issuing a fresh penalty notice under the Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal applied the functus officio principle and held that, once the original proceeding had culminated in adjudication, the authority lacked jurisdiction to revive penalty proceedings after a long delay. The subsequent penalty notice and order were therefore unsustainable, and the penalty order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2012 12:43:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=156624" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (4) TMI 428 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119628</link>
      <description>Where an earlier show cause notice and adjudication order finally dealt with duty recovery without proposing or confirming penalty, the department could not later reopen the same matter by issuing a fresh penalty notice under the Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal applied the functus officio principle and held that, once the original proceeding had culminated in adjudication, the authority lacked jurisdiction to revive penalty proceedings after a long delay. The subsequent penalty notice and order were therefore unsustainable, and the penalty order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119628</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>