<?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>2013 (12) TMI 1460 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170468</link>
    <description>Penalty under the Central Excise Rules could not be sustained because the show cause notice did not clearly specify the statutory provision authorising the levy. A vague or incomplete reference in the notice was insufficient to found a penalty demand, and the notice&#039;s failure to identify a distinct enabling basis meant the Department&#039;s claim could not be upheld. The assessee succeeded on the penalty issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 May 2015 14:24:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=386310" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (12) TMI 1460 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170468</link>
      <description>Penalty under the Central Excise Rules could not be sustained because the show cause notice did not clearly specify the statutory provision authorising the levy. A vague or incomplete reference in the notice was insufficient to found a penalty demand, and the notice&#039;s failure to identify a distinct enabling basis meant the Department&#039;s claim could not be upheld. The assessee succeeded on the penalty issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170468</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>