<?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 (7) TMI 183 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4146</link>
    <description>Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is attracted only when the statutory preconditions such as suppression, fraud, or equivalent culpable conduct are established. Where the assessee reversed CENVAT credit and paid the short duty before the show cause notice, and the adjudicating authority found no suppression of facts or other contravention, penalty could not be imposed. The prior allegation in the notice, by itself, was insufficient to trigger Section 11AC.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=43493" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (7) TMI 183 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4146</link>
      <description>Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is attracted only when the statutory preconditions such as suppression, fraud, or equivalent culpable conduct are established. Where the assessee reversed CENVAT credit and paid the short duty before the show cause notice, and the adjudicating authority found no suppression of facts or other contravention, penalty could not be imposed. The prior allegation in the notice, by itself, was insufficient to trigger Section 11AC.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4146</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>