<?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 (2) TMI 442 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271737</link>
    <description>The court held that the communication demanding penalty was appealable, no penalty could be demanded in the absence of duty payable, and penalties were not justified when CENVAT credit adjustments were allowed. The substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the appellants, and the appeals were allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Oct 2016 15:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=416460" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 442 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271737</link>
      <description>The court held that the communication demanding penalty was appealable, no penalty could be demanded in the absence of duty payable, and penalties were not justified when CENVAT credit adjustments were allowed. The substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the appellants, and the appeals were allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271737</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>