<?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 801 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155201</link>
    <description>Penalty under Rule 173Q and Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held not sustainable where the assessee had availed SSI exemption and used Modvat credit after crossing the clearance limit. The adjudicating authority accepted that the relevant restriction on credit utilisation operated under Rule 57A, not Rule 57Q, and also found no intention to evade duty or cause loss to the exchequer. As the demand itself was dropped and the factual foundation for penal action was absent, penalty could not be imposed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2013 12:20:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172232" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (11) TMI 801 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155201</link>
      <description>Penalty under Rule 173Q and Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held not sustainable where the assessee had availed SSI exemption and used Modvat credit after crossing the clearance limit. The adjudicating authority accepted that the relevant restriction on credit utilisation operated under Rule 57A, not Rule 57Q, and also found no intention to evade duty or cause loss to the exchequer. As the demand itself was dropped and the factual foundation for penal action was absent, penalty could not be imposed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155201</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>