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 →

2016 (2) TMI 556 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2016 (2) TMI 556 - CESTAT MUMBAI - TMI - Evasion of duty - penalty imposed under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Held that:- We find that the respondent right from beginning had informed the department regarding removal of 105 prototype vehicles and they have bonafidely claimed exemption under Notification No. 161/71 and on rejection of the request for extending the benefit of the said notification by the department, they cleared the vehicles 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

mpugned order and dismiss the Revenue’s appeal. - Decided in favour of assessee - Appeal No. E/3627/05 - Order No. A/85562/16/EB - Dated:- 11-1-2016 - SHRI RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SHRI RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Shri R.K. Maji, Assistant Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent : Shri S.. Chandrasekhar, Manager (Excise) ORDER PER: RAMESH NAIR The appeal of the Revenue is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. CEX.XI/AKD/127/NSK/APL/2005 dated 30.8.2005 passed by the Commi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

arged the excise duty along with interest before issue of show-cause notice. Later on, a show-cause notice was issued only for imposition of penalties under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. In the adjudication, a penalty of ₹ 12,14,259/- which is equal to the duty amount was imposed. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original dated 11.5.2005, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed the appeal by setting asi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Tribunal in case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III Vs. Machino Montell (I) Ltd. - 2004 (168) ELT 466 (Tri-LB). He submits that this judgement are now not a good law on the basis that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors - 2008 (231) ELT 3 (SC) has held that under Section 11AC equal amount of penalty should be imposed and the same cannot be reduced being a mandatory penalty equal to duty. 3. On the other side, Shri S. Chandrashekhar .....

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