<?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>2017 (4) TMI 435 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341465</link>
    <description>The Revisionary Authority exceeded its power by imposing a penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, as it was not proposed in the initial show cause notice. The court held that no authority could go beyond the scope of the notice, leading to the penalty imposition being deemed illegal and set aside. The appellant&#039;s appeal was allowed with any consequential relief that may follow.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:22:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=465384" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 435 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341465</link>
      <description>The Revisionary Authority exceeded its power by imposing a penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, as it was not proposed in the initial show cause notice. The court held that no authority could go beyond the scope of the notice, leading to the penalty imposition being deemed illegal and set aside. The appellant&#039;s appeal was allowed with any consequential relief that may follow.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341465</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>