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 →

Dabesh Prasad Nanda Versus Commissioner of C. Ex., New Delhi

2016 (5) TMI 438 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Imposition of penalty - Appellant submitted that he has resigned from M/s. Infocall Solutions Pvt. Ltd. on 4-7-2006 and is no way concerned with the activity of said company, therefore, penalty on the appellant is not imposable in the absence of any .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

igned from the assessee-company on 4-7-2006 although import took place before that date but no statement of the appellant has been recorded for imposition of penalty. Moreover, if statement of other persons have been relied upon, the cross-examinatio .....

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 is not imposable. Impugned order qua imposing penalty is set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant - C/4/2012-(SM) - Final Order No. A/53337/2015-SM(BR) - Dated:- 27-10-2015 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J) Shri Prabhat Kumar, Advocate, for the Ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of 100% EOU namely, M/s. Infocall Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Mohan Co-operative Industrial Area, New Delhi. On 4-7-2006, the appellant resigned from the said company and later on went abroad. Investigation was conducted by the Customs Authority on 6-12-200 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

m the said imposition of penalty, appellant is before me. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has resigned from M/s. Infocall Solutions Pvt. Ltd. on 4-7-2006 and is no way concerned with the activity of said company, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nalty be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned AR submits that period of dispute is 8-2-2006 to 11-3-2006 and during the relevant time, the appellant was the Director of the Company, therefore, penalty is rightly imposed. 5. Heard the pa .....

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