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 →

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-II Versus Arvind M. Kapoor

2015 (12) TMI 870 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Imposition of penalty - Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in negating the penalty imposed on Shri Arvind Kapoor, Managing Director of the Unit, in view of the specific malafide role attributed to him - Held .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uty of ₹ 14,734/- stood confirmed. The Tribunal has further noted that M/s Rishiroop Rubber (I) Ltd. had also challenged the said order and the Tribunal by its order dated 07.01.2004, allowed the appellant’s plea and set aside the impugned orde .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

preferred an appeal before this court being [2015 (11) TMI 318 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. By an order of even date, the said appeal has been dismissed. Under the circumstances, when the main appeal has been dismissed, there is no question of interfering .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

For the Respondent : Mr Navin K Pawha, Adv, Mrs Sangeeta N Pawha, Adv ORDER ( Per : Honourable Ms. Justice Harsha Devani ) 1. By an order dated 03.03.2009, this appeal under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has been admitted on the follow .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d to him?" 2. Heard Mr. R. J. Oza, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant and Mr. N. K. Pahwa, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. As can be seen from the impugned order dated 31.08.2007 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Ta .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t the respondent, Managing Director of one M/s Rishiroop Rubber (I) Ltd. against whom demand duty of ₹ 14,734/- stood confirmed. The Tribunal has further noted that M/s Rishiroop Rubber (I) Ltd. had also challenged the said order and the Tribun .....

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