<?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>2014 (5) TMI 792 - Madras High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247865</link>
    <description>Payment of differential central excise duty before issuance of the show cause notice does not, by itself, extinguish penalty liability where the statutory conditions under Section 11AC are otherwise satisfied, including short levy or short payment by reason of fraud, suppression, or similar intent. On that principle, the assessee remained liable to penalty despite pre-notice payment. However, because the original authority had not applied the first proviso to Section 11AC, the penalty was required to be limited to 25% of the duty determined, and the corresponding penalty under Rule 173Q also had to be moderated. The Tribunal&#039;s deletion of penalty was set aside, and penalty was upheld subject to the reduced statutory cap.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 25 May 2014 13:36:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=356272" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (5) TMI 792 - Madras High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247865</link>
      <description>Payment of differential central excise duty before issuance of the show cause notice does not, by itself, extinguish penalty liability where the statutory conditions under Section 11AC are otherwise satisfied, including short levy or short payment by reason of fraud, suppression, or similar intent. On that principle, the assessee remained liable to penalty despite pre-notice payment. However, because the original authority had not applied the first proviso to Section 11AC, the penalty was required to be limited to 25% of the duty determined, and the corresponding penalty under Rule 173Q also had to be moderated. The Tribunal&#039;s deletion of penalty was set aside, and penalty was upheld subject to the reduced statutory cap.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247865</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>