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 Shree Ram Synthetics And Shri Pawan Kumar Bansal Versus Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Vapi

2015 (10) TMI 2079 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

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 is no violation of principles of natural just .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssion 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) For the Petitioner : Shri S. Suriyanarayanan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. 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. The learned Authorised Representative on beha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

I 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 penalty under Rule 26 is not warranted. 5. The learn .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 (248) ELT 347 (Tri-Ahmd) v) Euro Cotspin Ltd .....

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