<?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>2024 (11) TMI 53 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761067</link>
    <description>Penalty on a co-noticee under Rule 26 was challenged on the basis that the main noticee&#039;s dispute had been settled under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. Faced with conflicting authorities on whether such settlement extinguishes co-noticee penalty, the Division Bench view favourable to the assessee was applied over contrary Single Member Bench decisions. On that basis, the penalty could not be sustained and was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Nov 2024 12:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=776439" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (11) TMI 53 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761067</link>
      <description>Penalty on a co-noticee under Rule 26 was challenged on the basis that the main noticee&#039;s dispute had been settled under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. Faced with conflicting authorities on whether such settlement extinguishes co-noticee penalty, the Division Bench view favourable to the assessee was applied over contrary Single Member Bench decisions. On that basis, the penalty could not be sustained and was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761067</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>