https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120616 Penalty could not be imposed in remand proceedings for the twelve notices where the original adjudication had consciously omitted penalty and that part had attained finality; those penalties were set aside. Section 11AC could not be applied retrospectively to the March 1995 to September 1995 notice, so the penalty was reduced to Rs. 5 lakhs. The misdeclaration penalty for the 26-02-1996 notice was upheld in principle because the exemption condition was not met, but it could not be enhanced on remand and was restricted to Rs. 1 lakh. The 1998 notices were set aside on the same finality reasoning, while three later notices were remanded for fresh adjudication because no hearing notice had been issued, causing breach of natural justice. en-us Wed, 17 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Feb 2024 10:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120616 Penalty could not be imposed in remand proceedings for the twelve notices where the original adjudication had consciously omitted penalty and that part had attained finality; those penalties were set aside. Section 11AC could not be applied retrospectively to the March 1995 to September 1995 notice, so the penalty was reduced to Rs. 5 lakhs. The misdeclaration penalty for the 26-02-1996 notice was upheld in principle because the exemption condition was not met, but it could not be enhanced on remand and was restricted to Rs. 1 lakh. The 1998 notices were set aside on the same finality reasoning, while three later notices were remanded for fresh adjudication because no hearing notice had been issued, causing breach of natural justice. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 17 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120616