<?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>2021 (2) TMI 202 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403710</link>
    <description>Reasonable access to relied-upon records was sufficient where the notice allowed inspection and copies within the prescribed time, further documents were not shown to be relevant to the defence, and no prejudice was established; the natural justice objection therefore failed. The omission to expressly cite Section 11AC did not invalidate the penalty and demand proceedings where the show cause notice and adjudication clearly proposed penalty and interest under the relevant rules, and the substance of the allegation was otherwise clear; that objection also failed. The revisional and writ challenges accordingly failed on merits, and the demand and penalty were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Feb 2021 09:59:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=635606" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (2) TMI 202 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403710</link>
      <description>Reasonable access to relied-upon records was sufficient where the notice allowed inspection and copies within the prescribed time, further documents were not shown to be relevant to the defence, and no prejudice was established; the natural justice objection therefore failed. The omission to expressly cite Section 11AC did not invalidate the penalty and demand proceedings where the show cause notice and adjudication clearly proposed penalty and interest under the relevant rules, and the substance of the allegation was otherwise clear; that objection also failed. The revisional and writ challenges accordingly failed on merits, and the demand and penalty were sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403710</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>