<?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>2025 (10) TMI 611 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779815</link>
    <description>Prosecution of the company under Section 9(1) of the Central Excise Act was found unsustainable because the material on record did not justify criminal action and the Tribunal&#039;s final order had already resolved the underlying issue against any statutory violation. The Special Judge&#039;s discharge order was therefore justified, and the High Court&#039;s interference with that discharge was held unwarranted. The discharge order was restored in favour of the company.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2025 09:39:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=858249" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (10) TMI 611 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779815</link>
      <description>Prosecution of the company under Section 9(1) of the Central Excise Act was found unsustainable because the material on record did not justify criminal action and the Tribunal&#039;s final order had already resolved the underlying issue against any statutory violation. The Special Judge&#039;s discharge order was therefore justified, and the High Court&#039;s interference with that discharge was held unwarranted. The discharge order was restored in favour of the company.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779815</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>