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

2016 (2) TMI 714 - CESTAT BANGALORE

2016 (2) TMI 714 - CESTAT BANGALORE - 2015 (330) E.L.T. 486 (Tri. - Bang.) - Penalties imposed under Section 11AC and Rules 25 and 26 of the Central Excise Rules - Duty was deposited before issuance of SCN - Held that:- As there is no dispute about the fact that such short payment, which according to the appellant has occurred inadvertently, on account of non-computation of the value of clearances, was detected by themselves only. The said fact of exceeding the exemption limit came to the notice .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

-section is to avoid any futile litigation, which purpose stands defeated by the lower authorities by issuing show cause notice to the appellant.

Having said so we set aside the impugned orders of the authorities below upholding the penalties imposed under Rules 25 and 26 of the Central Excise Rules. Inasmuch as penalties stand set aside, imposed in terms of the above Rule, no infirmity can be found for non-imposition of penalty under Section 11AC. Accordingly the Revenue’s appeal is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

p;As per facts on record the appellant M/s. Micron Tooling was engaged in the manufacture of Tool Holders and Boring Bars. During the financial year 2006-07, he was availing the small scale exemption benefit in terms of Notification No. 8/2003-C.E., dated 1-3-2003, which granted total exemption to the first clearance of ₹ 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only). However the appellant crossed the said exemption limit on 13-2-2007. However, without realizing that they have crossed the said exe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d Thirty only) was paid by them along with interest on 25-4-2007 itself. The said fact was reflected by them in the monthly return filed in May, 2007. 4. On the above basis appellant was served with a show cause notice on 27-2-2008 proposing imposition of penalties upon them in terms of Section 11AC and on the other two assessees being Managing Partner and Partner, for imposition of penalties under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules. The original adjudicating authority imposed penalty to the e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ty was paid on his own, before any intervention of the Department. As such he concluded that inasmuch as there is nothing on record to suggest investigation or other measure by the Department before the date of disclosing facts by the appellant, imposition of penalty upon them under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act was not warranted. He accordingly set aside the same. However he upheld the penalties imposed under Rule 25 and Rule 26 on the present appellants, on the ground that they have admit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

imit of ₹ 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) was detected by the appellant himself and was informed to the Revenue. Duty was paid by him on his own, without any intervention by the Revenue within a period of one month from the date of detection and the said fact was reflected in the return filed in May, 2007. As per the provisions of Section 11A(2B) of Central Excise Act where duties not levied are paid by an assessee on his own ascertainment of such duty or on the basis of duty ascerta .....

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