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

2016 (1) TMI 269 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

2016 (1) TMI 269 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - TMI - Benefit of SSI exemption Notification No. 8/2000-CE dated 01.03.2001 - clubbing the clearance value of their Banglore unit with the clearance value of Daman unit - Imposition of penalty - Held that:- There is no dispute that the clearance value of Bangalore Unit would be clubbed with the assessee's Daman Units. The appellant had not disclosed this fact with the Department. The representative of the assessee company admitted in their statements before t .....

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, is reduced to ₹ 15,000.00. The penalty imposed on Shri Parimal Naik, Factory manager is set-aside - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - Appeal Nos. E/258-260/2008, Appeal No. E/219/2008 - Dated:- 22-9-2015 - P K Das, Member (J) And P M Saleem, Member (T) For the Appellant : Shri Anand Nainawati, Adv For the Respondent : Shri L Patra, AR ORDER Per P K Das These appeals are arising out of a common order, and therefore, all are taken up together for disposal. 2. M/s Fortune Packaging P .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dated 15.12.2005 was issued proposing demand of duty alongwith interest and to impose penalty on the assessee and to impose penalty of Shri Sachin Modi, Director and Shri Parimal Naik, Factory Manager of the assessee company. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of duty of ₹ 3,99,684.00 alongwith interest and imposed penalty of equal amount of duty on the assessee and appropriated the amount of ₹ 3,40,950.00 as deposited by them. It has also imposed penalty of ₹ 25,0 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

re the Tribunal against the assessee company, but, in grounds of appeal, it is pleaded that the penalty of the Factory manager cannot be less than ₹ 10,000.00 under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 4. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, We find that the main contention of the Learned Advocate for the assessee is that the entire demand of duty is barred by limitation. The case relates to interpretation of the exemption notification, and therefore, extended peri .....

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. Ltd. 2009 (239) E.L.T. 439 (Guj.) . He also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case ofVadhera Luminaries vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I 2004 (166) E.L.T. 211 (Tri.-Del.). It is contended that the penalty was imposed on the assessee company under Section 11 AC and therefore, penalty on the Director is not proper. 5. On the other hand, the Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the appella .....

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