Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik Versus M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.

2016 (2) TMI 556 - CESTAT MUMBAI

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 on payment of duty taking the highest appr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ppeal. - 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 Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs ( .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 aside the Order-in-Original. Aggrieved by th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ral 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, Manager (Excise) of the respondent comp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version