<?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 (11) TMI 700 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152179</link>
    <description>Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applies to the manufacturer and cannot be used as the basis for penalising a director where the penalty is traceable to Rule 209 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On the confined remand, the director&#039;s penalty was examined only for Section 11AC applicability, and that provision was found inapplicable to him. The reduced penalty of Rs. 35,000 was therefore correctly sustained, with no further interference warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:17:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=169217" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (11) TMI 700 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152179</link>
      <description>Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applies to the manufacturer and cannot be used as the basis for penalising a director where the penalty is traceable to Rule 209 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On the confined remand, the director&#039;s penalty was examined only for Section 11AC applicability, and that provision was found inapplicable to him. The reduced penalty of Rs. 35,000 was therefore correctly sustained, with no further interference warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152179</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>