New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (5) TMI 977 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2015 (5) TMI 977 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - Penalty u.s 11AC - Appellant did not collect the central excise duty attributable to the removal of tractor parts - Held that:- Since the manufacturing activity of the appellant was known to the Department through maintenance of various records and Audit conducted by the Central Excise officers from time to time, it cannot be alleged that the appellant has indulged in suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of central excise duty. The invoice .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and will fall under the purview of manufacture, the appellant appropriately discharged the central excise duty liability alongwith interest.

There is no element of suppression, wilful misstatement, fraud etc. involved in the present case, justifying invocation of the extended period of limitation for issuance of the show cause notice and for adjudication of the proceedings, especially for the purpose of imposition of mandatory penalty. I am also of the view that since, the entire duty .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of penalty does not arise. - impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - Excise Appeal No.E/178/2009 EX. [SM] - FINAL ORDER NO. 52203/2015 - Dated:- 27-5-2015 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) For the Petitioner : Shri A.K. Mishra, Consultant For the Respondent: Shri M.R. Sharma, DR ORDER PER: S.K. MOHANTY This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 21.10.2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Bhopal. 2. Brief facts .....

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 did not collect the central excise duty attributable to the removal of tractor parts. However, subsequently, central excise duty attributable to the removal of tractor parts for the disputed period alongwith interest was paid by the appellant. So far as leviability of Central Excise duty on job worked goods is concerned, the appellant is not contesting the same in this appeal. The appellants only grievance is with regard to imposition of penalties by the authorities below under Section 11AC .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oices issued by the appellant to the consignee, wherein the description of the goods supplied on job work basis have been clearly reflected. He further submits that the manufacturing details of the tractor parts on job work basis have been duly reflected in the Daily Stock Account (RG-I Register) maintained by the appellant in terms of Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. It is his further submission that when the ingredients mentioned in section 11AC of the Act i.e. fraud, collusion, wilf .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

-I return for the month of April 2006 was submitted before the Range Office on 05.07.2006 and since, the investigation process started prior to the date of submission of the ER-I return, it cannot be said that the facts intimated by the appellant in the ER-I Return were known to the Department beforehand. Thus, according to the ld. D.R., there was ample justification for invocation of the provisions of section 11AC of the Act for imposition of equal amount of penalty. 5. I have heard the ld. Cou .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

b worked goods from the factory to M/s TAFE Motors & Tractors Ltd, but subsequently, the duty amount was paid along with interest. Upon furnishing the information regarding such payment to the jurisdictional Central Excise officials, show cause proceedings were initiated by the Department for recovery of the short paid duty and for appropriating the amount already paid by the appellant towards such duty liability. 7. Since the manufacturing activity of the appellant was known to the Departme .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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