<?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 (4) TMI 1113 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183002</link>
    <description>The Settlement Applications under Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 filed by M/s. Maa Chhinnamastika Cement &amp;amp; Ispat Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Ram Chandra Rungta were granted. The applicants admitted duty liability, sought immunity from penalty and prosecution, and cooperated with the department. The Bench determined duty at Rs. 18,53,489/-, imposed penalties, and granted immunity from prosecution under specified conditions. Compliance within 30 days was mandated, with provisions for voiding the settlement in case of fraud. Immunities were contingent on meeting all requirements, emphasizing consequences of fraudulent conduct.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 May 2016 08:41:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=429656" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (4) TMI 1113 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183002</link>
      <description>The Settlement Applications under Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 filed by M/s. Maa Chhinnamastika Cement &amp;amp; Ispat Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Ram Chandra Rungta were granted. The applicants admitted duty liability, sought immunity from penalty and prosecution, and cooperated with the department. The Bench determined duty at Rs. 18,53,489/-, imposed penalties, and granted immunity from prosecution under specified conditions. Compliance within 30 days was mandated, with provisions for voiding the settlement in case of fraud. Immunities were contingent on meeting all requirements, emphasizing consequences of fraudulent conduct.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183002</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>