Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Kamakhya Steels Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE, Meerut-I

2015 (5) TMI 133 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Compounded levy scheme - Rule 96 ZO (3) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Re-determination of duty liability - Short payment of duty - Tribunal reduced the imposed penalty - Held that:- Departmental officers came to know about short payment in course of scrutiny of the RT-12 returns for the relevant period. From this it is clear that the fact of payment of duty on actual production basis during the period from December 1999 to March 2000 had been disclosed by the appellant in their RT-12 returns. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rt in the case of Bansal Alloys and Metals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (2010 (11) TMI 83 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT). - Decied against assessee. - Excise Appeal No. 1949 of 2002 - Final Order No. 50773/2015 - Dated:- 11-3-2015 - Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) And Honble Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial),JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Rajesh Chhibber, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Ranjan Khanna, Authorized Representative (DR) ORDER Per. Rakesh Kumar :- The facts leading to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

they requested the Jurisdictional Central Excise authorities for re-determination of duty liability on actual production basis during the year 1998-1999 under Section 3A (4). The appellant, accordingly, from December 1999 onward started paying duty on actual production basis. 1.2 The Department was of the view that since in April 1998 they had opted for compounded levy scheme and thereafter they had not withdrawn their option, they would be liable to pay duty under compounded levy scheme. On thi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Commissioner confirmed the above-mentioned duty demand against the appellant alongwith interest thereon @ 18% per annum and also imposed penalty of equal amount on the appellant company under Rule 96 ZO (3) of the Central Excise Rules. The Commissioner while confirming the duty demand, observed that the assessees plea that the demand having been issued beyond the period of one year from the relevant date is time barred, is not acceptable, as in the provision of Rule 96 ZO (3) no time limit has b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

onth would be imposable. 1.3 Against this order of the Commissioner, the appellant have filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 1.4 The Tribunal vide final order-in-appeal No. 61/06-CE dated 07/10/05 upheld the Commissioners order with regard to confirmation of duty demand, but reduced the penalty under Rule 96 ZO (3) to ₹ 50,000/-. The Tribunal while upholding the Commissioners order confirming of the duty demand relied upon the Apex courts judgment in the case of CCE vs. Venus Castings (P) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nble Allahabad High Court. The appeal filed by the appellant company was disposed of by Honble High Court vide order dated 07/4/14 by which Honble High Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal for determination of the duty liability for the financial year 1999-2000. Honble High Court in the order has observed that the Tribunal has not considered the duty liability for the financial year 1999-2000 under Rule 96 ZO (3) after examining as to whether the option as required under Rule 96ZO (3) had b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

modification. However, in the order dated 18/11/14, the question of reduction of penalty, remanded by the High Court vide its order dated 21/11/14 was not examined by the Tribunal, as the Revenues appeal remanded by the High Court had not been heard by the Tribunal. It is this matter which is being heard today in these proceedings. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri Rajesh Chhibber, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the penalty has been imposed by the Commissioner unde .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on of India reported in 2010 (260) E.L.T. 343 (P&H) has held that the provision in Rule 96 ZO (3) for minimum mandatory penalty even for slightest delay in payment of duty without any element of discretion is ultravires the Act and the Constitution of India, and that in view of this, there is no infirmity in the Tribunals order dated 07/10/05 reducing the penalty to ₹ 50,000/-. 4. Shri Ranjan Khanna, the learned DR, defended the Commissioners order imposing penalty equal to the duty de .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version