<?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 (10) TMI 1837 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266562</link>
    <description>The penalty imposed on the co-noticee under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was set aside as there was no demand for duty or confiscation of goods, rendering the penalty unjustified. The main noticee had paid the duty and interest before the Show Cause Notice was issued, leading to proceedings being dropped under Section 11A(2B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appeal was allowed, and the imposition of the penalty against the Appellant was overturned.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=402642" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 1837 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266562</link>
      <description>The penalty imposed on the co-noticee under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was set aside as there was no demand for duty or confiscation of goods, rendering the penalty unjustified. The main noticee had paid the duty and interest before the Show Cause Notice was issued, leading to proceedings being dropped under Section 11A(2B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appeal was allowed, and the imposition of the penalty against the Appellant was overturned.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266562</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>