<?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>2019 (4) TMI 325 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377881</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the duty demand but vacated penalties on the firm, citing financial challenges and industry nature. The Tribunal&#039;s reinstatement of penalties without Revenue appeal was beyond its jurisdiction, resulting in penalties being entirely removed. Statements obtained during investigation were considered, with penalties vacated on the firm due to trading practices. The duty demand was confirmed, and the appeal partly allowed, deleting firm penalties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Sep 2019 12:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=565663" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 325 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377881</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the duty demand but vacated penalties on the firm, citing financial challenges and industry nature. The Tribunal&#039;s reinstatement of penalties without Revenue appeal was beyond its jurisdiction, resulting in penalties being entirely removed. Statements obtained during investigation were considered, with penalties vacated on the firm due to trading practices. The duty demand was confirmed, and the appeal partly allowed, deleting firm penalties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377881</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>