<?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>2011 (3) TMI 790 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207542</link>
    <description>The Settlement Commission under Chapter V of the Central Excise Act, 1944 may settle admitted duty liability and impose penalty, interest and related reliefs where clandestine removal and non-remittance of excise duty are established. Sections 32F(7) and 32F(9) empower the Commission to pass such order as it thinks fit on matters covered by the application, while Section 32K(1) permits immunity from prosecution and, wholly or partly, from penalty, fine and interest, and Section 32M makes the settlement conclusive. A challenge that no specific penal provision was quoted did not invalidate the order, and the precedents relied on were distinguished on facts. The penalties on the company and its officers were therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 07:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=181021" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (3) TMI 790 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207542</link>
      <description>The Settlement Commission under Chapter V of the Central Excise Act, 1944 may settle admitted duty liability and impose penalty, interest and related reliefs where clandestine removal and non-remittance of excise duty are established. Sections 32F(7) and 32F(9) empower the Commission to pass such order as it thinks fit on matters covered by the application, while Section 32K(1) permits immunity from prosecution and, wholly or partly, from penalty, fine and interest, and Section 32M makes the settlement conclusive. A challenge that no specific penal provision was quoted did not invalidate the order, and the precedents relied on were distinguished on facts. The penalties on the company and its officers were therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207542</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>