New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (10) TMI 1327 - CESTAT CHENNAI

2015 (10) TMI 1327 - CESTAT CHENNAI - TMI - Penalty u/s 11AC - Evasion of duty - Held that:- Persons that does not show the reason why the department failed to ask question to know the reason why the duty collected was not deposited. Department has not come out with clear evidence to show malafides of the appellants or their contumacious conduct to establish evasion. - Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944, has two essential ingredients. First ingredient is "intention" and the second one is " .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n to cause evasion is impermissible on the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, there shall not be penalty on both the appellants. - Decided in favour of assessee. - E/604 & 605/2009 - Dated:- 5-3-2015 - D N Panda, Member (J),J. For the Appellant : Mr C Manickam, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr M Rammohan Rao, AC (AR) ORDER Per: D N Panda: Ld. Counsel submits that the appellant company was new to Indian law when came to set up its factory. It commenced manufacture of "Conveyor Belts .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ld not be deposited with the department without knowing the time for deposit. There was no reason to cause evasion. Appellant's conduct was not at all malafide nor its intention is bad. None of the statement recorded from the Accountant in charge as well as authorized representative demonstrate appellant's evasive intention. It deposited the duty realized on 08.03.2007 with interest, upon detection by Revenue on 06.03.2007. This does not establish deliberate intention to cause evasion. I .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appellant company was dismissed by him. Appellant, even today does not dispute duty liability. Appellants therefore prayed that penalty imposed on both of them may be waived considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. On the other hand, Revenue submits that the appellant did not deposit the duty element collected from buyer of the goods which is a clear case of duty evasion. Upon detection by Revenue on 06.03.2007, the duty element was deposited by the appellant, which otherwise wou .....

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