<?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>2015 (12) TMI 1822 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285358</link>
    <description>Appeals were admitted on substantial questions of law concerning the imposition and sustainment of penalty under central excise law. The issues included whether a supplier of raw material not liable to excise duty could still be penalised, whether penalty could stand despite statutory records showing cash sales accepted by income tax, sales tax and trade tax authorities, whether the penalty order lacked tenable findings, whether material evidence on record was ignored, and whether a separate penalty already imposed on the appellant as Managing Director affected the further penalty. The document records these as the operative legal questions for consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Jan 2020 09:35:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=599693" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (12) TMI 1822 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285358</link>
      <description>Appeals were admitted on substantial questions of law concerning the imposition and sustainment of penalty under central excise law. The issues included whether a supplier of raw material not liable to excise duty could still be penalised, whether penalty could stand despite statutory records showing cash sales accepted by income tax, sales tax and trade tax authorities, whether the penalty order lacked tenable findings, whether material evidence on record was ignored, and whether a separate penalty already imposed on the appellant as Managing Director affected the further penalty. The document records these as the operative legal questions for consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285358</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>