<?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>2022 (2) TMI 1282 - MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304003</link>
    <description>Penalty orders imposed on directors in an excise evasion dispute could not stand independently once the manufacturer&#039;s connected appeal had been allowed and remanded for fresh consideration. Because the penalties were consequential to the same underlying dispute and the Appellate Tribunal was required to reconsider the principal matter, the penalty orders were set aside and the connected penalty appeals were also remanded for rehearing before the Tribunal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2022 05:44:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=689276" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (2) TMI 1282 - MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304003</link>
      <description>Penalty orders imposed on directors in an excise evasion dispute could not stand independently once the manufacturer&#039;s connected appeal had been allowed and remanded for fresh consideration. Because the penalties were consequential to the same underlying dispute and the Appellate Tribunal was required to reconsider the principal matter, the penalty orders were set aside and the connected penalty appeals were also remanded for rehearing before the Tribunal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304003</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>