<?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 (7) TMI 965 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126522</link>
    <description>Inter-unit transfers of goods and corresponding Cenvat credit were held unsustainable for duty demand purposes where the record contained no clear finding of short levy, inadmissible credit, or evasion, and the situation was treated as revenue neutral. On that basis, the extended period of limitation and the penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were also held inapplicable because the material showed only procedural non-compliance, not the factual basis for suppression or wilful misstatement. However, limited penalties could still be sustained for contraventions of the excise and credit rules, so the higher penalties were reduced under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Nov 2012 17:16:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163415" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 965 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126522</link>
      <description>Inter-unit transfers of goods and corresponding Cenvat credit were held unsustainable for duty demand purposes where the record contained no clear finding of short levy, inadmissible credit, or evasion, and the situation was treated as revenue neutral. On that basis, the extended period of limitation and the penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were also held inapplicable because the material showed only procedural non-compliance, not the factual basis for suppression or wilful misstatement. However, limited penalties could still be sustained for contraventions of the excise and credit rules, so the higher penalties were reduced under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126522</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>