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 →

Rakesh Chappal Store Versus CCE, Delhi-I

2015 (11) TMI 40 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Evasion of duty - Penalty under Rule 26 for abetment - Held that:- Rule 26 speaks about imposition of penalty in the case where a person has knowledge or reason to believe that the goods are liable for confiscation. There are no documents or record to establish that the appellant had knowledge that M/s.B.S.Enterprises was evading duty. M/s.B.S.Enterprises sold goods to M/s.G & D Incorporation from where the appellants procured the products. Some of the G&D brand footwears were above ₹ 250/ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Virender Kumar did not file appeal. - evidence placed and the judicial decisions, the penalty of ₹ 80,000/- imposed on the appellant under Rule 26 is unsustainable and the same is set aside. Taking into consideration, the argument of the learned counsel for appellant that after abatement the duty liability of the seized goods would only come to ₹ 21,365/-, the levy of redemption fine of ₹ 80,000/- in my view, is on the higher side - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - Appea .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Excise, Delhi-I inspected the shop premises of the appellant in connection with information received against M/s.B.S. Enterprises. That out of total stock lying at the premises of the appellant, the visiting officers detained Guys & Dolls brand footwear valued at ₹ 7,68,256/- (MRP) for the reason that the invoices issued by M/s.B.S.Enterprises did not contain MRP details. The statement of Shri Virender Kumar, partner of the appellant firm was taken and thereafter show cause notice da .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

entral Excise Rules, 2002. Revenue filed appeal challenging release of the seized goods and against the penalty imposed being very low. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order dated 13.10.2013 set aside the order to release the seized goods (footwear) and ordered confiscation of the same and levied redemption fine of ₹ 80,000/-. Further penalty of ₹ 80,000/- was imposed upon the appellant firm. Aggrieved the appellant has filed this appeal. 3. At the time of hearing, learned Counsel fo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing duty committed by M/s.B.S.Enterprises. The G & D brand footwear were manufactured and then supplied to appellants by M/s.B.S.Enterprises. The footwears below ₹ 250/- are not excisable to duty. The invoices did not contain MRP details. The goods seized from the shop of the appellant could not be tallied with invoices as the invoices did not reflect the MRP details. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that Shri Virender Kumar, partner of the appellant firm paid the penalty .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to account the abatement. He submitted that as per MRP, the goods seized valued at ₹ 7,68,256/-. The assessable value of these goods after abatement would be only ₹ 5,18,573/-. The duty liability of the same would then be ₹ 21,365/- only. That therefore levy of redemption fine of ₹ 80,000/- is unjustified. 6. Against this, learned DR submitted that the MRP affixed on the goods was more than ₹ 250 which were excisable goods. M/s.B.S.Enterprises cleared the goods with .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ise Rules, 2002 on the appellant. Rule 26 speaks about imposition of penalty in the case where a person has knowledge or reason to believe that the goods are liable for confiscation. There are no documents or record to establish that the appellant had knowledge that M/s.B.S.Enterprises was evading duty. M/s.B.S.Enterprises sold goods to M/s.G & D Incorporation from where the appellants procured the products. Some of the G&D brand footwears were above ₹ 250/- and were excisable go .....

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