<?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>2001 (12) TMI 112 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50890</link>
    <description>Penalty under Rule 57U(6) was moderated because the credit had been reversed before the show cause notice and the overdrawal was limited; on that factual basis, the penalty was reduced as excessive. Interest under Section 11AB could not be sustained because its levy depended on proceedings having been initiated under Section 11A, and that statutory precondition was absent; the interest demand was therefore set aside. The remaining portion of the impugned order was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:57:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89369" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (12) TMI 112 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50890</link>
      <description>Penalty under Rule 57U(6) was moderated because the credit had been reversed before the show cause notice and the overdrawal was limited; on that factual basis, the penalty was reduced as excessive. Interest under Section 11AB could not be sustained because its levy depended on proceedings having been initiated under Section 11A, and that statutory precondition was absent; the interest demand was therefore set aside. The remaining portion of the impugned order was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50890</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>