<?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>2009 (1) TMI 613 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125762</link>
    <description>Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was held inapplicable because the dispute arose from stock-taking loss, not from non-levy or short-levy of duty. Since the statutory precondition for invoking that penalty provision was not satisfied on the facts, penalty under Section 11AC could not be sustained. The remand by the lower appellate authority for examination of penalty under other applicable provisions was upheld as proper.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:39:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162671" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (1) TMI 613 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125762</link>
      <description>Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was held inapplicable because the dispute arose from stock-taking loss, not from non-levy or short-levy of duty. Since the statutory precondition for invoking that penalty provision was not satisfied on the facts, penalty under Section 11AC could not be sustained. The remand by the lower appellate authority for examination of penalty under other applicable provisions was upheld as proper.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125762</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>