<?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>2005 (12) TMI 48 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4687</link>
    <description>Where a duty demand had already been adjudicated under the Central Excise framework without any penal proposal in the original show cause notice, a later fresh notice issued only to impose penalty after adjudication was held unsustainable. The post-adjudication initiation of penalty proceedings was treated as invalid because the penal provisions had not been invoked at the stage of the original demand notice. The penalty order was therefore set aside, with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=44028" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (12) TMI 48 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4687</link>
      <description>Where a duty demand had already been adjudicated under the Central Excise framework without any penal proposal in the original show cause notice, a later fresh notice issued only to impose penalty after adjudication was held unsustainable. The post-adjudication initiation of penalty proceedings was treated as invalid because the penal provisions had not been invoked at the stage of the original demand notice. The penalty order was therefore set aside, with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4687</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>