<?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 893 - CESTAT, AHEMDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208026</link>
    <description>The court held that imposing penalties on co-noticees under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules after concluding proceedings against the main noticee was incorrect. The penalties imposed on the applicants were set aside, and their appeals were allowed, resulting in the disposal of stay petitions and appeals.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Jun 2013 10:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=181499" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (3) TMI 893 - CESTAT, AHEMDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208026</link>
      <description>The court held that imposing penalties on co-noticees under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules after concluding proceedings against the main noticee was incorrect. The penalties imposed on the applicants were set aside, and their appeals were allowed, resulting in the disposal of stay petitions and appeals.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208026</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>