<?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>2003 (6) TMI 82 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51951</link>
    <description>Where duty is discharged voluntarily before issuance of the show cause notice, mandatory penalty is not warranted on the settled legal position applied by CESTAT, Chennai. On that factual footing, penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules was held not leviable. The same reasoning extended to the consequential demand for interest, and interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was held not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:52:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90429" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (6) TMI 82 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51951</link>
      <description>Where duty is discharged voluntarily before issuance of the show cause notice, mandatory penalty is not warranted on the settled legal position applied by CESTAT, Chennai. On that factual footing, penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules was held not leviable. The same reasoning extended to the consequential demand for interest, and interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was held not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51951</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>