<?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 (11) TMI 1514 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371171</link>
    <description>The appeal was allowed, setting aside the order of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and restoring the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The court held that the Director&#039;s statement was inadmissible, simultaneous penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 25 were impermissible, the demand was barred by limitation, and the finding of clandestine removal was unsupported by substantial evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2019 14:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=544712" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (11) TMI 1514 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371171</link>
      <description>The appeal was allowed, setting aside the order of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and restoring the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The court held that the Director&#039;s statement was inadmissible, simultaneous penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 25 were impermissible, the demand was barred by limitation, and the finding of clandestine removal was unsupported by substantial evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371171</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>