Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (10) TMI 334 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

2015 (10) TMI 334 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - TMI - Confiscation of goods - Imposition of redemption fine - Non availability of goods - Held that:- Appellants are not contesting the demand of duty. They have also paid the duty before issue of the Adjudication order. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s Exotic Associates Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - [2009 (11) TMI 293 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], held that the benefit of reduced penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t aside. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - Appeal No.E/453,454/2009; E/Extn/14670-14671/2014 - Order No. A/10293-10294 / 2015 - Dated:- 27-3-2015 - Mr. P.K. Das, J. For The Appellant: Shri P.M. Dave, Advocate For The Respondent: Shri Jitendra Nair, Authorised Representative Per: P.K. Das 1. These appeals are arising out of a common order and therefore, both are taken up together for disposal. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that M/s Rishabhdev Techocable Ltd was engaged .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ice, the Appellant paid the balance amount of demand of duty as proposed in the Show Cause Notice in order to avoid legal complicity. The Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty of ₹ 41,16,128.00, which was paid by the Appellant and appropriated in the Adjudication order. There is a further demand of ₹ 6,06,315.00, which was also paid by the Appellant and appropriated in the Adjudication order. The Adjudicating authority also confiscated the goods and as the goods were no .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

her litigation. They are not contesting the demand of duty. He submits that the Adjudicating authority should have given the option of payment of 25% of duty as per the provisions of Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. He further submits that the penalty imposed on the Director of the Appellant company would not be sustained on the ground that the penalty under Section 11AC was imposed on the Appellant company. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Sonam Clock Pvt. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2008 (227) ELT 330 (Tri-Del.) 4. Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submits that the penalty on the Director is sustainable as he is involved in the clandestine removal of the goods. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE Kanpur Vs M/s Ess Jay Poly Film (P) Ltd - 2010 (249) ELT 575 (Tri-Del). 5. After considering the submissions of both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the Appellants are not contesting the demand of duty. They have also .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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