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 →

King Bell Apparels Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem

2015 (12) TMI 663 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Waiver of penalty and interest - penalties under Section 11AC - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Held that:- This is the case where the appellants have cleared the cotton yarn dyed woven fabrics without payment of excise duty whereas they collected the Central Excise duty from the customers and the same was not remitted to government account. I find that the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of ₹ 34,72,714/- and appropriated the amount of ₹ 13,11,900/- and impo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

admitted by the appellant and paid the duty amount - reduced demand ordered by LAA and consequent Section 11AC penalty and interest is liable to be upheld. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order in so far as the demand and Section 11AC penalty and demand of interest - Decided against assessee. - Appeal No.E/97/2009 - FINAL ORDER No.41000/2015 - Dated:- 17-4-2015 - Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member For the Petitioner : Ms.Minchu, Advocate For the Respondent : ShriK.P.Mura .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as well as under Rule 25 of CER 2002 on the appellant and also imposed equivalent penalty on the Managing Partner of the appellant-company. On appeal by the appellant, Commissioner (Appeals) modified the order and reduced the demand and proportionately reduced the penalty under Section 11AC and also interest and set aside the penalties under Rule 25 and Rule 26. Hence the present appeal. 3. The learned advocate for the appellant submits that the inve .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

iable for penalty and interest. She relied on the following :- 1) CCE VsKrishnaram Dyeing & Finishing Works 2013 (298) ELT 376 (Guj.) 2) A. Tathinam, Prop. Michael Match Works Vs CCE 1992 (60) ELT 451 (Tribunal) 3) CCE Mangalore Vs Pals Microsystems Ltd. 2009 (234) ELT 428 (Kar.) 4) CCE Mangalore Vs Pals Microsystems Ltd. 2011 (270) ELT 305 (SC) 5) Mohan Bakers Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Kolkata 2008 (221) ELT 308 (Tri.-Kol.) 4. On the other hand, Ld. A.R reiterated the findings and the adjudication 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

e relied on the following citations :- (1) CCE VizagVs Mehta & Co. 2011 (264) ELT 481 (SC) (2) CCE SuratVsNeminath Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. 2010 (256) ELT 369 (Guj.) (3) Union Quality Plastic Ltd. Vs CCE Vapi 2013 (294) ELT 222 (Tri.-LB) 5. I have carefully considered the submission of both sides and examined the records. The short issue in the present appeal relates to waiver of penalty and interest asthe appellants already paid the revised/reduced duty amount as per Commissioner(Appeals) OIA. I f .....

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 11Ac and also equal penalty under rule 25 on the appellants as well as on the partner of the company. Whereas the LAA in his findings considered the appelants plea and reduced the duty amount based on verification report received from the adjudicating authority. The relevant para 6.3 of OIA is reproduced as under :- Based on the above verification report, it is observed that the appellant are eligible for cenvat credit to the tune of ₹ 17,76,563/-. The total demand made by the Lower Aut .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

16,96,151/- (34,72,714 17,76,563). Considering that the appellants have already paid ₹ 13,11,900/- towards the demand of duty the balance duty payable by the appellants is ₹ 3,84,251 (Rs.34,72,714 13,11,900 17,76,563) . Therefore, it is evident that the LAA not only allowed cenvat credit and proportionately reduced the duty demand from ₹ 34,72,714/- to ₹ 16,96,151/- and reduced penalty under Section 11AC but also set aside the equal penalty imposed on the appellant under .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y established and the same was admitted by the appellant and paid the duty amount. In this regard, the Honble High Court in the case of CCE VsNeminath Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. (supra) upheld the invoking proviso to Section 11A for demand under extended period. Further, I find that the Tribunal s Larger Bench in the case of Union Quality Plastic Ltd. Vs CCE (supra) by relying the Hon bleHigh Court decision of CCE VsNeminath Fabrics Ltd. (supra) ruled in favour of the Revenue. The relevant paragraphs of .....

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