<?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 (4) TMI 742 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124560</link>
    <description>Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act could not be sustained where no duty demand had been confirmed under Section 11A(2). The record also did not satisfactorily establish that the alleged suppliers were fake or non-existent, and the show cause notice did not disclose their names. Because Section 11AC is attracted only after confirmation of duty under Section 11A(2), the penal provision was held inapplicable and the penalty was set aside in favour of the assessees.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2013 13:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=161504" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (4) TMI 742 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124560</link>
      <description>Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act could not be sustained where no duty demand had been confirmed under Section 11A(2). The record also did not satisfactorily establish that the alleged suppliers were fake or non-existent, and the show cause notice did not disclose their names. Because Section 11AC is attracted only after confirmation of duty under Section 11A(2), the penal provision was held inapplicable and the penalty was set aside in favour of the assessees.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124560</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>