GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
What's New Case Laws Highlights Articles News Forum Short Notes Statutory TMI SMS More ...
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (12) TMI 1258 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2015 (12) TMI 1258 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - 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 pa .....

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 authorities below have not specifically observed 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, 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

th interest and imposition of penalty under Rule 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 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

that since there is no element of suppression, 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 imp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f 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 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 pr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt (Supra) has held as unders: "16. The Tribunal 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 requ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

applying for registration. Clause (d) refers to 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Advanced Search


Latest Notifications:

    Dated      Category

20-7-2017 Cus (NT)

20-7-2017 GST CESS Rate

19-7-2017 IT

19-7-2017 IT

18-7-2017 IT

18-7-2017 CE (NT)

18-7-2017 CE

18-7-2017 GST CESS Rate

15-7-2017 Kerala SGST

14-7-2017 Andhra Pradesh SGST

14-7-2017 Cus (NT)

14-7-2017 Cus

13-7-2017 Co. Law

13-7-2017 Co. Law

13-7-2017 ADD

13-7-2017 ADD

12-7-2017 Jammu & Kashmir SGST

12-7-2017 Gujarat SGST

12-7-2017 Gujarat SGST

12-7-2017 CGST Rate

More Notifications


Latest Circulars:

21-7-2017 Goods and Services Tax

20-7-2017 Goods and Services Tax

20-7-2017 Goods and Services Tax

19-7-2017 Goods and Services Tax

19-7-2017 Income Tax

18-7-2017 Customs

17-7-2017 Customs

14-7-2017 Income Tax

13-7-2017 Central Excise

13-7-2017 Customs

More Circulars



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version