<?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 (4) TMI 907 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210143</link>
    <description>Penalty under Rule 13 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 cannot be sustained unless the show-cause notice and adjudication order specifically identify the clause and exact nature of the alleged contravention. The record showed that no precise clause was invoked, so the assessee was not put on notice of the specific charge and could not meet it effectively. On that basis, the penalty was held not leviable and the impugned order was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=183579" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (4) TMI 907 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210143</link>
      <description>Penalty under Rule 13 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 cannot be sustained unless the show-cause notice and adjudication order specifically identify the clause and exact nature of the alleged contravention. The record showed that no precise clause was invoked, so the assessee was not put on notice of the specific charge and could not meet it effectively. On that basis, the penalty was held not leviable and the impugned order was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210143</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>