<?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>2026 (6) TMI 258 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792877</link>
    <description>Where the CESTAT finally set aside the underlying excise duty demand and the departmental challenge failed, the very foundation for alleging duty evasion ceased to exist. Criminal prosecution under Sections 9 and 9AA of the Central Excise Act could not survive on a demand that no longer subsisted, and the complaint proceedings, including the summoning order, were quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2026 10:50:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=905632" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (6) TMI 258 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792877</link>
      <description>Where the CESTAT finally set aside the underlying excise duty demand and the departmental challenge failed, the very foundation for alleging duty evasion ceased to exist. Criminal prosecution under Sections 9 and 9AA of the Central Excise Act could not survive on a demand that no longer subsisted, and the complaint proceedings, including the summoning order, were quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792877</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>