<?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 938 - CESTAT  ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341968</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that simultaneous penalties under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, cannot be imposed independently. It emphasized that penalties under Rule 25 require elements specified in Section 11AC, allowing only one penalty based on the circumstances. The appeal by Revenue was dismissed, ruling out dual penalties as unsupported by the Act and Rules.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Feb 2018 11:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=466462" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 938 - CESTAT  ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341968</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that simultaneous penalties under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, cannot be imposed independently. It emphasized that penalties under Rule 25 require elements specified in Section 11AC, allowing only one penalty based on the circumstances. The appeal by Revenue was dismissed, ruling out dual penalties as unsupported by the Act and Rules.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341968</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>