<?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 (10) TMI 554 - Punjab and Haryana High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166342</link>
    <description>The Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue challenging the order of the Tribunal that declined to impose penalties on the partners of the firm under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Tribunal held that once proceedings against the firm concluded under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, penalties against the partners could not be pursued under Rule 26. The Court agreed, stating that Rule 26 must be read in conjunction with Section 11A and as the firm had settled its dues, penalties on the partners were unjustified. Therefore, the imposition of penalties on the partners was deemed unwarranted, and both appeals were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2014 16:07:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=369799" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (10) TMI 554 - Punjab and Haryana High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166342</link>
      <description>The Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue challenging the order of the Tribunal that declined to impose penalties on the partners of the firm under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Tribunal held that once proceedings against the firm concluded under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, penalties against the partners could not be pursued under Rule 26. The Court agreed, stating that Rule 26 must be read in conjunction with Section 11A and as the firm had settled its dues, penalties on the partners were unjustified. Therefore, the imposition of penalties on the partners was deemed unwarranted, and both appeals were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166342</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>