Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Metal Temple Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolhapur

2015 (6) TMI 468 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Imposition of penalty - CENVAT Credit - Held that:- Demand as well as the penalty was confirmed in terms of Rule 8(3)A of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the ground that the appellant has utilised the CENVAT Credit during the default period. The du .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

IGH COURT) has strucked down the proceedings and held Rule 8(3A) as unconstitutional and therefore, the whole foundation of the present case gets demolished. - penalty imposed on the appellant does not survive. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

MD/313/2012 dated 28/12/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune-II wherein the learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order-in-original No. Adj/IKJ/02/2012-13 dated 03/08/2012. However, penalty under Rule 25(1) of the Cen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

edly i.e. beyond 30 days from the due date. The original adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty paid through CENVAT Credit during the default period in terms of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and appropriated the same again .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved by the said order of the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the order-in-original. However, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the penalty to ₹ 6 lakhs .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hich is not permissible under Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Indsur Global Ltd. vs. Union of India - 2014 (310) E.L.T. 833 (Guj.) held the said provisions of Rule 8(3A) of Central Ex .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt of the hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Precision Fasteners ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2015 (316) E.L.T. 595 (Guj.) the hon'ble High Court has strucked down the entire proceedings covered under a show cause notice, ta .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y both the sides. I find that, in the present appeal, the appellant has contested only the imposition of penalty of ₹ 6 lakhs under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. In the present case, the demand as well as the penalty was confirmed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version