<?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>2008 (3) TMI 609 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124555</link>
    <description>Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act could not be imposed for a period preceding its insertion, because a penalty provision cannot operate retrospectively. The relevant period was 1992-93, while Section 11AC came into force only in September 1996. As the earlier penalty under Section 173Q had already been dropped and the impugned penalty was founded only on Section 11AC, the penalty was held unsustainable and set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Oct 2012 16:44:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=161499" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (3) TMI 609 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124555</link>
      <description>Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act could not be imposed for a period preceding its insertion, because a penalty provision cannot operate retrospectively. The relevant period was 1992-93, while Section 11AC came into force only in September 1996. As the earlier penalty under Section 173Q had already been dropped and the impugned penalty was founded only on Section 11AC, the penalty was held unsustainable and set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124555</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>