Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

RAMAN GANDHI Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI

2015 (3) TMI 1110 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Levy of personal penalty under Rule 26 - M/s. Sadbhavana Enterprises paid the amount of duty in question along with interest and 25 per cent of duty as penalty within a period of 30 days of issuing of the show cause notice - Held that:- if against a show cause notice the main party paid duty, interest and 25 per cent duty as penalty then the proceedings initiated through the show cause notice comes to an end. - Since the main assessee has paid duty, interest and 25 per cent duty as penalty withi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he facts of the case are that the main party namely M/s. Sadbhavana Enterprises paid the amount of duty in question along with interest and 25 per cent of duty as penalty within a period of 30 days of issuing of the show cause notice. A Penalty of ₹ 15,000/- was imposed on the appellant under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant is in appeal against the order of imposition of penalty on the appellant under Rule 26 of the Rules, 2002. 3. The ld. Counsel for the appellan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

26-7-2006. She also relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Raipur v. Jay Prakash Agarwal - 2013 (297) E.L.T. 554 (Tri. Del.), CCE, Raipur v. Jay Ambey Metal Works Pvt. Ltd. - 2013 (295) E.L.T. 453 (Tri. - Del), CCE, Raipur v. Abir Steel Rolling Mills - 2013 (296) E.L.T. 90 (Tri. - Del.) and CCE, Raipur v. Deepak Patel - 2013 (298) E.L.T. 583 (Tri. Delhi). Therefore, she prayed that penalty imposed on the appellant to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the ld. AR submi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

CBEC as per the circular the intent of the CBEC is that if duty, interest and 25 per cent of duty as penalty has been paid within 30 days of receipt of the show cause notice, therefore, same will amount to conclude adjudication procedure. So the mandate of the CBEC circular is clear that if duty, interest and 25 per cent duty as penalty has been paid within 30 days of the issuance of the show cause notice, the adjudication proceedings come to an end. Further, the contention of the ld. AR is that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as made party to the said show cause notice to impose penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The ld. AR has strongly relied on the decision of Anand Agrawal (supra), the same has been considered by this Tribunal in the case of Jai Prakash Agrawal (supra) wherein this Tribunal has considered and observed as under : The first proviso to sub-section (2) use the words proceedings in respect of such person and other persons to whom notice are served under sub-section (1) . The word .....

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 same is not on the issue involved in this case. The issue decided in this case is as to whether the benefit of 1st proviso to Section 11A(2) can be extended when the assessee could not exercise the option under Section 11A(1A) within 30 days of receipt of show cause notice for the reason that the show cause notice did not mention the option available to the assessee under Section 11A(1A) and the Tribunal has decided this question in the favour of the assessee. However a Coordinate Bench of thi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

usly refunded is to be recovered. With due respect, in my view, this view of the Tribunal in the case of Anand Agrawal (supra) cannot be treated as correct, as in term of Section 13 of General Clauses Act, 1897, in Central Acts and Regulations, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, the words in singular shall include the plural and vice versa and, therefore, the words such person in first proviso of sub-section (2) would include more than one person also if show cause not .....

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 person chargeable with duty would stand concluded. But since the Legislature has used the words such person and other persons in 1st proviso to Section 11A(2), the words other persons have to be given a meaning, different from such 1st person . Adopting the Revenue s stand would amount to adopting a construction of the proviso to Section 11A(2), which would make the words other persons redundant, which is not permissible  In my view, therefore, the words other persons used in first provis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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