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 A.S. Shoes Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur

2015 (12) TMI 1258 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Recovery of duty - Imposition of penalty - Held that:- Since, the amount of duty along with interest has been paid by the appellant on its own ascertainment and over and above such amount, no further amount towards Central Excise duty or interest was payable, there was no necessity for issuance of SCN, or for adjudication of the matter in view of the provisions of Section 11A(2B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the statutory mandates, upon payment of duty amount the issue has to be stati .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rved that non-payment of duty within the prescribed time limit is attributable to the ingredients mentioned in the said rule. Thus, I am of the view that imposition of penalty under Rule 25 is not legal and proper. - there is no substance in the impugned order, justifying imposition of penalty - Decided in favour of assessee. - Excise Appeal No. E/54553/2014-E(SM) - Dated:- 23-6-2015 - S. K. Mohanty, Member (J) For the Appellant : Ms Surabhi Sinha, Adv For the Respondent : Mr Pramod Kumar, DR OR .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

le 25 & Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules. The SCN was adjudicated vide order dated 30.11.2012, wherein ₹ 1,67,717/-towards duty liability was confirmed and the amount already deposited by the appellant was appropriated. Besides, equal amount of penalty under Rule 25 and ₹ 20,000/- under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 have also been imposed in the said order. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the quantum of penalty under Rule 25 to ₹ 50,000/- an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

misstatement, fraud, collusion etc. on the part of the appellant in defrauding the Government Revenue, invocation of Rule 25 is not justified for imposition of penalty. In this context Ld. Advocate relies on the Judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE vs Saurashtra Cement Ltd. reported in 2010 (260) ELT 71 (Guj). 3. Per contra the Ld. Jt. CDR Sh. Pramod Kumar appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order. 4. I have heard the Ld. Counsel 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

ew of the provisions of Section 11A(2B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the statutory mandates, upon payment of duty amount the issue has to be statistically closed for all practical purposes. Thus, I am of the view that issuance of SCN and adjudication of the matter in imposing the penalty under Central Excise Rules was not justified in the circumstances of the case. Further, in absence of suppression, misstatement, collusions etc., penal provisions contained in Rule 25 of the 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

ribunal considering Rule 25 has observed in its order that Rule 25 provides for imposition of penalties which shall not exceed the duty on the excisable goods, when there is contravention of the nature referred to in clause (a), clause (b), clause (c) or clause (d). The Tribunal found that clause (a) of Rule 25 refers to removal of excisable goods in contravention of any of the provisions of the Rules. When goods were removed, no excise duty was required to be paid at that point of time. As such .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o contravention of any of the provisions of the Rules with intent to evade payment of duty, Excisable goods were entered in records, cleared on Central Excise Invoices and duty was also paid subsequently, though belatedly along with interest. As such, the said clause (d) is also not contravened. After analyzing and examining all these four sub-clauses of Rule 25, keeping in mind the facts of the case, the Tribunal held that invocation of Rule 25 for imposition of penalty for delayed deposit of d .....

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