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 Neminath Fabrics P Ltd. And Shri Arunkumar Narayanlal Trivedi (Director) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs (Adjudication) -Surat-I

2015 (11) TMI 710 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Benefit of cum-duty-price - CENVAT Credit - Imposition of penalty - Held that:- Tribunal in the case of M/s Mamta Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd (2015 (11) TMI 251 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD) on the identical situation following the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court extended the benefit of cum-duty-price. In the case of Dugar Tetenal India Ltd. (2008 (3) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT ), the Hon ble Supreme Court held the cum-duty price would be extended even in the case of extended period of limitation. The case of A .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

BR> It is a clear case of clandestine removal of the goods. It is noticed that the appellant No. 2 had indulged for removal of the goods without payment of duty, which was detected by the Central Excise Officer. The main contention of the Learned Advocate is that there is no proposal for confiscation of the goods, and therefore, penalty under Rule 26 cannot be imposed. On close reading of Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned advocate. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed partly in favour of assessee. - Appeal No : E/1081-1082/2007 - Order No. A/ 11282-11283/2015 - Dated:- 9-7-2015 - Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) And Mr. P.M, Saleem, Member (Technical) For the Petitioner : Shri Willingdon Christian, Advocate For the respondent : Shri G.P. Thomas, Authorised Representative ORDER Per: P.K. Das The relevant facts of the case in brief, are that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Man Made fabrics. On 14.09.2001, the Central Excise officers visited .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ioner (Appeals) rejected the appeals. Hence, both the appellants filed these appeals. 2. The Learned Advocate on behalf of the appellants submits that he is not contesting the demand of duty alongwith interest and penalty on the appellant company on merit. He submits that the benefit of cum-duty-price should be extended for quantification of the demand of duty and also the benefit of CENVAT credit should be allowed. He relied upon the decisions, as under:- (a) Commissioner of Central Excise, Jai .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed. He further submits that the penalty imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the appellant No. 2 can not survive for the reason that the Director has no relation with the goods for confiscation. 4. The Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that in the case of clandestine removal of manufacture no benefit cum-duty price and CENVAT credit should be extended to them. He submits that the Hon ble Supre .....

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 of the Honble Supreme Court extended the benefit of cum-duty-price. In the case of Dugar Tetenal India Ltd. (supra), the Honble Supreme Court held the cum-duty price would be extended even in the case of extended period of limitation. The case of Amrit Agro Industries Ltd. (supra), as relied upon by the Learned Authorised Representatives in the context of the assessee cleared the goods, during the relevant period on the basis of exemption notification. Hence, the said case law would not be a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

xotic Associates vs Commissioner of Central Excise 2010 (252) E.L.T. 49 (Guj.) held that option is to be given to the assessee of reduced penalty under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 7. Regarding the imposition of penalty Director, we find that it is a clear of case clandestine removal of the goods. It is noticed that the appellant No. 2 had indulged for removal of the goods without payment of duty, which was detected by the Central Excise Officer. The main contention of the Lear .....

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