<?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 (11) TMI 551 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246296</link>
    <description>The Commissioner (Appeals) held that penalty under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was not applicable to two individuals as they did not misuse the credit. The Tribunal found Rule 26(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 inapplicable as the goods were not liable to confiscation. Rule 26(2) was also deemed irrelevant, leading to the rejection of the Revenue&#039;s appeal for penalty imposition under Rule 26 in the case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 20 Apr 2014 15:58:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=352917" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (11) TMI 551 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246296</link>
      <description>The Commissioner (Appeals) held that penalty under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was not applicable to two individuals as they did not misuse the credit. The Tribunal found Rule 26(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 inapplicable as the goods were not liable to confiscation. Rule 26(2) was also deemed irrelevant, leading to the rejection of the Revenue&#039;s appeal for penalty imposition under Rule 26 in the case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246296</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>