<?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 (10) TMI 464 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188009</link>
    <description>For the same excise contravention, penalty cannot be imposed cumulatively on both the assessee-firm and its proprietor. The Tribunal held that the law permits penalty against either the firm or the proprietor for the same default, but not both simultaneously. It therefore deleted the penalty on the company while sustaining the minimum personal penalty already imposed on the proprietor, leaving liability only to that extent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2016 17:53:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=447879" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (10) TMI 464 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188009</link>
      <description>For the same excise contravention, penalty cannot be imposed cumulatively on both the assessee-firm and its proprietor. The Tribunal held that the law permits penalty against either the firm or the proprietor for the same default, but not both simultaneously. It therefore deleted the penalty on the company while sustaining the minimum personal penalty already imposed on the proprietor, leaving liability only to that extent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188009</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>