<?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 (7) TMI 689 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210657</link>
    <description>A separate penalty on a partner was held sustainable where the record specifically attributed involvement in clandestine clearances, even though the assessee firm had discharged the duty, interest and the reduced penalty under Section 11AC. The Tribunal distinguished authorities cited for the proposition that a partner should not be penalised absent any specific role in the show-cause notice, because here the notice recorded that a broker contacted the partner and placed orders for supply of materials, and that statement was not retracted. On those facts, the partner&#039;s participation was treated as established and the separate penalty was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 Feb 2012 17:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=184090" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (7) TMI 689 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210657</link>
      <description>A separate penalty on a partner was held sustainable where the record specifically attributed involvement in clandestine clearances, even though the assessee firm had discharged the duty, interest and the reduced penalty under Section 11AC. The Tribunal distinguished authorities cited for the proposition that a partner should not be penalised absent any specific role in the show-cause notice, because here the notice recorded that a broker contacted the partner and placed orders for supply of materials, and that statement was not retracted. On those facts, the partner&#039;s participation was treated as established and the separate penalty was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210657</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>