<?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>2015 (2) TMI 89 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256089</link>
    <description>Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was treated as mandatory once its conditions were satisfied, leaving no discretion to reduce the penalty on equitable grounds. Payment of duty after receipt of the show cause notice did not wipe out liability to penalty where the statute required its imposition in the prescribed measure. The Tribunal&#039;s reduction of the penalty as excessive was inconsistent with the statutory scheme, so the reduced penalty was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2015 06:05:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=375171" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (2) TMI 89 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256089</link>
      <description>Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was treated as mandatory once its conditions were satisfied, leaving no discretion to reduce the penalty on equitable grounds. Payment of duty after receipt of the show cause notice did not wipe out liability to penalty where the statute required its imposition in the prescribed measure. The Tribunal&#039;s reduction of the penalty as excessive was inconsistent with the statutory scheme, so the reduced penalty was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256089</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>