<?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 (11) TMI 554 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267745</link>
    <description>A penalty on a co-noticee under the Central Excise Rules could not survive once the duty demand and penalty on the main noticee had already been set aside. The Tribunal held that, with the foundation for penal action against the co-noticee removed, the penalty could not be sustained. It also waived pre-deposit of the penalty for hearing the appeal. The penalty on the co-noticee was therefore set aside and the appeal and stay petition were allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2015 17:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=405057" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 554 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267745</link>
      <description>A penalty on a co-noticee under the Central Excise Rules could not survive once the duty demand and penalty on the main noticee had already been set aside. The Tribunal held that, with the foundation for penal action against the co-noticee removed, the penalty could not be sustained. It also waived pre-deposit of the penalty for hearing the appeal. The penalty on the co-noticee was therefore set aside and the appeal and stay petition were allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267745</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>