Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Home
2003 (12) TMI 489 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
Violation of Rules 52A, 9(1), 173G, 224, and 226 leading to confiscation and penalty imposition. Analysis: The case involved an Appeal and a Stay Petition against Order-in-Appeal No. 92/2003. The Appellant argued that duty was paid before the Show Cause Notice was issued, hence penalty imposition was unjustified. They claimed ignorance about the legal position, admitting a mistake in not updating RG 23A Part II despite mentioning the debit entry in invoices. The Appellant's representative produced certified photocopies of RG 1. On the other hand, the Revenue contended that the Appellant attempted to evade duty by declaring the last invoice on the pre-budget day and raised invoices later. The Revenue cited violations of several rules and justified the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty imposition. Upon reviewing the submissions and case records, the Judge found the Appellant in violation of various rules, leading to 5760 kgs of PV Corn Yarn being liable for confiscation, along with a penalty under Rule 173Q. The Judge confirmed the appropriation of Rs. 1,34,246 paid through TR-6 Challan towards duty. While acknowledging the confiscation, the Judge noted the lack of deliberate evasion as per the Joint Commissioner's findings, reducing the redemption fine from Rs. 90,000 to Rs. 50,000. The penalty under Rule 173Q was also reduced from Rs. 1,34,246 to Rs. 25,000, considering the circumstances. Ultimately, the Judge allowed the appeal on revised terms, ordering the modifications accordingly.
|