<?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>2012 (6) TMI 144 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213824</link>
    <description>The Judge held that the appellants were not liable for penalties under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, as there was no duty demand on the Aluminum Sections. Therefore, the impugned order imposing penalties was set aside, and all appeals were allowed with any consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Nov 2013 09:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=187224" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (6) TMI 144 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213824</link>
      <description>The Judge held that the appellants were not liable for penalties under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, as there was no duty demand on the Aluminum Sections. Therefore, the impugned order imposing penalties was set aside, and all appeals were allowed with any consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213824</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>