Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

CCE, Bangalore-II Versus M/s. Liquid Metal Furniture Pvt. Ltd. And Vice-Versa

2015 (11) TMI 773 - CESTAT BANGALORE

Levy of penalty - Denial of exemption claim - duty demand u/s 11A - SSI Exemption - Notification No.8/2003 dt. 01/03/2003 - Held that:- Revenue has not challenged the reasoning advanced by Commissioner(Appeals) and has not rebutted the said findings. The appellate authority has set aside the penalty on the respondent on the ground that as per their letter dt. 10/01/2007, it was the respondent himself who disclosed all the facts and subsequently deposited the duty. As per the order of the appella .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, the provisions of Section 11(2) provide that no show-cause notice should be issued to the assessee. As such, I find no infirmity in the view of the Commissioner(Appeals). - there was no malafide intention on the part of the assessee inasmuch as the assessee has himself detected the mistake and has deposited the differential duty along with interest much before the issuance of the show-cause notice, the imposition of penalty of ₹ 10,000/- in terms of the provisions of Rule 25 of Central E .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

assessee, Revenue has filed the present appeal. I have heard Shri A.K. Nigam, Addl. Commissioner(AR) and Shri S. Teli, Deputy Commissioner(AR) appearing for the Revenue and Shri Girish K, Chartered Accountant appearing for the assessee. 2. As per the facts on record, the assessee was engaged in the manufacture of modular workstations falling under chapter 94 of the Central Excise Tariff Act and were availing the SSI exemption in terms of Notification No.8/2003 dt. 01/03/2003, which granted uncon .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

008 proposing confirmation of duty along with interest and imposition of penalties. The said show-cause notice stand adjudicated by the original adjudicating authority. 3. The respondents filed an appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) challenging the imposition of penalty upon them by submitting that the duty was paid by them on their own on 18/01/2007 along with interest. In such a scenario, there was no legal liability to impose any penalty upon them. 4. The Commissioner(Appeals) took note o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

es. Accordingly he set aside the penalty imposed upon the respondent. However the penalties imposed upon the Managing Director and employee of the firm under Rule 25 and 26 were upheld. 5. Being aggrieved with the said order, Revenue has filed the present appeal. 6. The only ground of appeal by the Revenue is that the assessee has not denied the fact of exceeding the exemption limit and their liability to pay the duty. As such the demand is sustainable under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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