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

2015 (10) TMI 2079 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

2015 (10) TMI 2079 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - TMI - 100% EOU - diversion of the duty free raw material in the open market without payment of duty - Penalty under Rule 26 - Held that:- Adjudicating authority had fixed personal hearing on different dates 06.02.2007, 20.02.2007 & 27.02.2007. At the request of the learned Advocate of the Appellant the personal hearing was again fixed on 21.03.2007, 24.04.2007 and 14.05.2007. So, sufficient opportunities of hearing were allowed to present their case. There .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

firm and the partner. - considering the submission of learned Advocate that the Appellant is a mere broker, the quantum of penalty is excessive. In our considered view, as the penalty was imposed on the partner, and therefore, the imposition of penalty on the firm is not warranted. - Penalty imposed is reduced - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - Appeal No.E/26,27/2008 - Order No.A/11319-11320/2015 - Dated:- 14-9-2015 - MR. P.K. DAS, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. P.M. SALEEM, MEMBER (TECHNICAL .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ch under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 3. One M/s Enkay Tex-O-Foods Industries Ltd, (in short M/s Enkay) 100% EOU was engaged in the manufacture of Texturised Yarn. They cleared duty free Partial Oriented Yarn (POY) under CT3 Certificate. The Adjudicating authority observed that M/s Enkay diverted the duty free raw material in the open market without payment of duty. It has further been observed that the present Appellants had a role for selling of duty free material in the open market. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dt.26.07.2006 addressed to the Additional DGCEI for providing documents. He further submits that he has requested the Adjudicating authority to grant adjournment and to supply the documents, which were not considered. It is submitted that the Appellants were not involved in any manner in this case. The Appellants had no knowledge that the goods were of duty free nature. There is no material available in the record that the goods were diverted by the Appellants and therefore, imposition of penalt .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lso submits that imposition of penalty on the partner and partnership firm cannot sustain. He relied upon various decisions, on the issue of violation of principles of natural justice and, penalty on the partner and partnership firm cannot sustain, as under:- i) Wooden Industries Vs CCE Patna 2004 (164) ELT 339 (Tri-Kolkata) ii) Micro Polyester Pvt.Ltd Vs CCE Ahmedabad 2007 (211) ELT 297 (Tri-Ahmd) iii) Laxmi Impex Vs CCE Rajkot 2009 (235) ELT 833 (Tri-Ahmd) iv) Al-Amin Exports Vs CCE Surat 2009 .....

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