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

2016 (3) TMI 620 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (3) TMI 620 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - 2017 (346) E.L.T. 469 (Tri. - Ahmd.) - Differential duty demand - Penalty imposed challenged - grievance of the assessee is that no option to pay reduced penalty of 25% under Section 11 AC was given to them, and that penalty on M/s Garden Silk Mils Limited under Rule 25 is not sustainable as the said unit was only a job worker, and that the penalty of ₹ 2 Lakhs on Shri Bipin Modi is too harsh as he is only a Director of M/s Alfino Fashions Pvt Limited. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r the option of payment of reduced penalty of 25%, provided they pay the same within 30 days of receipt of this order. We also find that under the facts and Circumstances of the case, there is merit in the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the penalty on M/s Garden Silk Mills Limited and Shri Bipin Modi should be reduced, and hence the penalty of ₹ 1 Lakh on M/s Garden Silk Mills Limited is reduced to ₹ 50,000/- and the penalty of ₹ 2 Lakh on Shri Bipin Mo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rden Silk Mils Ltd have filed the subject three appeals aggrieved by the impugned common order-in-appeal dated 21.07.2008 on the same issue. Hence, all three appeals are taken up together. 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that M/s Alfino Fashions Pvt Ltd, procured POY at an average price of ₹ 68.18/Kg. and paid processing charges of about ₹ 10/Kg. to the processing unit M/s Garden Silk Mills Limited. Thus, though the cost of processed yarn worked out to ₹ 78.18/Kg., M/s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aid on the input namely the same processed yarn valued at ₹ 62.25 per Kg., on the ground that there was no further processing of the input and the same was cleared as it is. The case of the Department is that M/s Alfino Fashions Pvt Ltd and M/s Garden Silk Mills Ltd, are functioning from the same premises and are interconnected and related to each other. By the said modus operandi, the finished goods namely processed yarn was under valued and Central Excise Duty was paid at the lower value .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

impugned order-in-appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before us. 3. Heard both sides. The Learned Counsel for the appellants submits at the outset itself that the appellants are not contesting the duty liability and interest there upon. Their grievance is that no option to pay reduced penalty of 25% under Section 11 AC was given to them, and that penalty on M/s Garden Silk Mils Limited under Rule 25 is not sustainable as the said unit was only a job worker, and that the penalty of .....

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