<?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>2008 (8) TMI 375 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48474</link>
    <description>Retrospective insertion of Section 38A of the Finance Act, 2001 could not sustain criminal prosecution for alleged Central Excise offences where the acts were said to have occurred before the provision came into force. A retrospective amendment cannot create criminal liability for conduct that was not an offence when done, and prosecution cannot proceed in the absence of an existing penal provision on the date of the alleged acts. The proceedings were therefore held unsustainable and quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2010 16:45:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=86969" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 375 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48474</link>
      <description>Retrospective insertion of Section 38A of the Finance Act, 2001 could not sustain criminal prosecution for alleged Central Excise offences where the acts were said to have occurred before the provision came into force. A retrospective amendment cannot create criminal liability for conduct that was not an offence when done, and prosecution cannot proceed in the absence of an existing penal provision on the date of the alleged acts. The proceedings were therefore held unsustainable and quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48474</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>