Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (5) TMI 995 - CESTAT KOLKATA

2016 (5) TMI 995 - CESTAT KOLKATA - TMI - Imposition of penalty - Rule 25 (1) (a) and (d) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Availed value based SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 1/3/2003 - Appellant deposited entire amount of short levy alongwith interest as soon as mistake was pointed out - Held that:- there is nothing on record to suggest as to why appellant was under the impression that SSI benefit under Notification No. 8/2003-CE was admissible to them during the financial y .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

evant period indicates intent to evade Central Excise duty which could have escaped had it not been detected by departmental officers. Therefore, the provisions contained in Section 11A (2B) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, applicable at the relevant time were not applicable to the case of the appellant. At the same time it is observed that penalty imposed by the lower authorities is not equivalent to the 100% of the duty sought to be evaded by the appellant. Penalty imposed is roughly 25% 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

dated 21/5/2010 of the Adjudicating authority has been upheld. 2. Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the appellant is a manufacturer of paints, varnishes, thinners and paint removers falling under chapter 32 and 38 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. That appellant cleared the manufactured products from April, 2009 to June, 2009 without payment of Central Excise Duty by claiming exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE da .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

penalty of ₹ 3,08,200/- imposed by the adjudicating authority under Rule 25 (1) (a) and (d) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 which has been upheld by the 1st appellate authority. 2.1 It is the case of the appellant that as per the provisions of Section 11A (2B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, prevailing at the relevant time, if the short levy is paid by an assesse of its own or on being pointed out by the departmental officers and the amount is paid before the issue of show cause notice the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

xcise Act prevailing at the relevant time because there is intention to evade payment of duty and penalty has been correctly imposed under the provisions of Rule 25 (1) (a) (b) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. It was strongly argued by the Ld. A.R. that under SRP scheme of Central Excise Rules, the responsibility is heavily cast upon the assesse to determine and discharge correct duty liability. That if the departmental officers had not detected the evasion then the same would have escaped recover .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

year 2008-2009. As a result of the value of clearances exceeding ₹ 4.00 Crores, appellant was not eligible to SSI exemption under Notification No.8/2003-CE during the financial year 2009-2010. That appellant continued to avail SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE for the period April, 2009 to June, 2009. However, the differential amount of ₹ 12,32,528/- alongwith interest was paid by the appellant on being pointed out by the Department. It is argued by the appellant that t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ons of this Act or the rules made therein with intent to evade payment of duty. It has been clearly recorded by the adjudicating authority that under SRP based excise removals greater responsibility is cast upon the assesse to determine and discharge correct duty liability. It is also emphasized by the adjudicating authority that but for the detection made by the departmental officers, the short levy would have remained undetected. There is nothing on record to suggest as to why appellant was un .....

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