<?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 1081 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342111</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed on the appellant under Rule 15(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not applicable. The Tribunal relied on a precedent from the Hon&#039;ble Punjab &amp;amp; Haryana High Court, determining that penalties under Section 11AC are for duty evasion, not for cases involving the reversal of excess amounts claimed under specific rules. As a result, the penalty was set aside, and the appellant&#039;s appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Feb 2018 15:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=466831" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 1081 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342111</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed on the appellant under Rule 15(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not applicable. The Tribunal relied on a precedent from the Hon&#039;ble Punjab &amp;amp; Haryana High Court, determining that penalties under Section 11AC are for duty evasion, not for cases involving the reversal of excess amounts claimed under specific rules. As a result, the penalty was set aside, and the appellant&#039;s appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342111</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>