<?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>2007 (10) TMI 93 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3124</link>
    <description>Penalty under Rule 13(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 could not be sustained because the show-cause notice did not propose that penalty, and imposing it on that basis travelled beyond the notice. Penalty under Rule 13(1) was also unwarranted because the wrongly availed Cenvat credit had been reversed and interest paid before adjudication. On those facts, the order imposing penalties was set aside in full.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=42476" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (10) TMI 93 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3124</link>
      <description>Penalty under Rule 13(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 could not be sustained because the show-cause notice did not propose that penalty, and imposing it on that basis travelled beyond the notice. Penalty under Rule 13(1) was also unwarranted because the wrongly availed Cenvat credit had been reversed and interest paid before adjudication. On those facts, the order imposing penalties was set aside in full.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3124</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>