<?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>2018 (8) TMI 1396 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365924</link>
    <description>The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and the Tribunal. It held that issuing a second Show Cause Notice (SCN) on the same set of facts as the first SCN amounted to double jeopardy and vexing the assessee twice for the same allegations. The court found the second SCN invalid and ordered the refund of the amount paid by the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2019 14:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=532040" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (8) TMI 1396 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365924</link>
      <description>The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and the Tribunal. It held that issuing a second Show Cause Notice (SCN) on the same set of facts as the first SCN amounted to double jeopardy and vexing the assessee twice for the same allegations. The court found the second SCN invalid and ordered the refund of the amount paid by the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365924</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>