<?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 (7) TMI 1108 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330510</link>
    <description>Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not be applied to conduct occurring before it came into force on 28 September 1996. Because the relevant period was 1994-1995, the penalty provision was not in existence at the time of the alleged default and could not support the impugned demand. Findings on clandestine removal and manufacture did not change the legal position on retrospectivity. The penalty was therefore not attracted and was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2016 11:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=436264" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (7) TMI 1108 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330510</link>
      <description>Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not be applied to conduct occurring before it came into force on 28 September 1996. Because the relevant period was 1994-1995, the penalty provision was not in existence at the time of the alleged default and could not support the impugned demand. Findings on clandestine removal and manufacture did not change the legal position on retrospectivity. The penalty was therefore not attracted and was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330510</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>