<?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 (3) TMI 194 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3727</link>
    <description>The High Court dismissed the appeal as it found no legal basis to support the imposition of a penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, when the disputed duty amount had been deposited before the issuance of a show cause notice. The Court highlighted the lack of intention to evade duty and upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to set aside the penalty on the manufacturer and the Director of the Company.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=43075" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (3) TMI 194 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3727</link>
      <description>The High Court dismissed the appeal as it found no legal basis to support the imposition of a penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, when the disputed duty amount had been deposited before the issuance of a show cause notice. The Court highlighted the lack of intention to evade duty and upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to set aside the penalty on the manufacturer and the Director of the Company.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3727</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>