<?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>2006 (12) TMI 522 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187825</link>
    <description>A penal provision cannot be applied retrospectively unless the statute clearly authorises such operation. Section 76, which prescribed penalty for failure to pay duty, came into force on 10.09.2004, while the dispute related to an earlier period. Penalty under section 76 was therefore held inapplicable to that prior conduct, and the revenue appeal was rejected. The stated effect is that the amended penalty provision operates prospectively only.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2016 12:48:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=447086" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (12) TMI 522 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187825</link>
      <description>A penal provision cannot be applied retrospectively unless the statute clearly authorises such operation. Section 76, which prescribed penalty for failure to pay duty, came into force on 10.09.2004, while the dispute related to an earlier period. Penalty under section 76 was therefore held inapplicable to that prior conduct, and the revenue appeal was rejected. The stated effect is that the amended penalty provision operates prospectively only.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187825</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>