<?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 (11) TMI 745 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253428</link>
    <description>The Tribunal was required to adjudicate the Revenue&#039;s challenge to the levy of mandatory penalty under Rule 57-I(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for the period after 23 July 1996. Because the penalty provision had come into force for that subsequent period and the ground had been expressly raised, the matter called for a reasoned determination on merits rather than confinement to the pre-23 July 1996 period. The Tribunal&#039;s order was set aside to that extent, and the issue of penalty for the post-23 July 1996 period was remitted for reconsideration in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2014 08:15:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=369325" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (11) TMI 745 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253428</link>
      <description>The Tribunal was required to adjudicate the Revenue&#039;s challenge to the levy of mandatory penalty under Rule 57-I(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for the period after 23 July 1996. Because the penalty provision had come into force for that subsequent period and the ground had been expressly raised, the matter called for a reasoned determination on merits rather than confinement to the pre-23 July 1996 period. The Tribunal&#039;s order was set aside to that extent, and the issue of penalty for the post-23 July 1996 period was remitted for reconsideration in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253428</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>