<?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>2016 (1) TMI 1012 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271220</link>
    <description>A limitation plea not pressed in the earlier round and not raised before the adjudicating authority in remand cannot be entertained afresh in subsequent proceedings, especially where the remand was confined to issues already under consideration; the plea was therefore rejected. Penalty under the Central Excise Rules was examined on a proportional basis and found excessive on the facts, so interference was warranted and the penalty was reduced from Rs. 10 lakh to Rs. 10,000.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2016 10:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=414754" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 1012 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271220</link>
      <description>A limitation plea not pressed in the earlier round and not raised before the adjudicating authority in remand cannot be entertained afresh in subsequent proceedings, especially where the remand was confined to issues already under consideration; the plea was therefore rejected. Penalty under the Central Excise Rules was examined on a proportional basis and found excessive on the facts, so interference was warranted and the penalty was reduced from Rs. 10 lakh to Rs. 10,000.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271220</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>