GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
What's New Case Laws Highlights Articles News Forum Short Notes Statutory TMI SMS More ...
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (5) TMI 1120 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2016 (5) TMI 1120 - CESTAT MUMBAI - TMI - Waiver of penalty imposed - Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Main noticee against whom duty, interest and penalty was proposed have paid duty, interest and 25% of penalty within one month from the date of show cause notice, therefore, the proceedings against the present appellant should also stands concluded along with the main assessee - Held that:- the duty liability has been discharged after the issuance of show cause notice. In my view .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he Revenue that assessee may seek refund of the amount as that the entire order-in-original is set aside as the first appellate authority has considered the extension of benefits of Section 11A to the assessee only on the ground that he has paid the amount in full. If the assessee would not have paid this amount, this benefit would not have been extended to him. Therefore all the appellants are entitled for the immunity as per proviso to Section 11A (2) and accordingly they are entitled for 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

KP/NSK/14 to 21/2011 dt. 31.01.2011 and OIA No. AKP/NSK/22 to 29/2011 dt. 31.1.2011 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & Customs, Nashik. 2. The issue involved in the present case is that if the main appellant, against whom, the demand of excise duty, interest and penalty were proposed, discharge the liability of duty, interest and 25% of penalty within one month from the date of show cause notice whether the proceedings against Co-noticees in the same show cause notice shal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

emanding duty was issued only to the main assessee and not to the noticees. On the other co-notice the penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules 2002 was proposed by way of the same show cause notice. Accordingly, the Ld. Commissioner held that the proceedings against the main assessee against whom the demand of duty was proposed can only be conclusive and not in respect of other co-noticees. Aggrieved by the impugned order the appellants are before me. 3. Shri Vinay Sejpal, Shri Ashok Kumar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, therefore it cannot be interpreted that only such noticee against whom duty demand was raised is to be treated as such person to whom the show cause notice was issued under Section 11A(1) of the Act. The other Co-noticees to whom the penalty under Rule 26 was proposed, the show cause notice to these persons also were under Section 11A(1) only, therefore when the main assessee against whom the duty demand was proposed, pays duty, interest and 25% penalty, the proceedings against such person as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

E.L.T. 271 (Tri.Del.) (iv) Guardian Castings Pvt. Ltd. Ravindra C Aggarwal Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I 2015-TIOL-396-CESTAT-MUM (v) Tikam P. Bhojwani Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad 2011 (272) E.L.t. 88 (Tri-Ahmd.) (vi) Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad, Nasik-II Ambika Waste Management Pvt. Ltd. & Others Order No. A/3778-3781/15/SMB dt. 23.11.2015 (v) Commissioner of C.Ex., Raipur Vs. Jai Ambey Metal Works Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (295) E.L.T. 453 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

gments this Tribunal has taken a contrary view (1) Commissioner of Central Excise Raipur Vs. Shri Anand Agarwal & Others 2013-TIOL-26-CESTAT-DEL (2) Shri Ghanshyamdas C. Goyal Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad 2015-TIOL-756-CESTAT-MUM. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. I find that the appellants sought waiver of penalty imposed under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the ground that the main noticee in the show cause notice against who .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nst whom the penalty under Rule 26 was proposed, proceedings their against shall also be concluded. Accordingly, no penalty can be imposed in terms of proviso to Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act. The operative portion of the various judgments are reproduced below: (i) In the case of Jai Ambey Metal Works Pvt. Ltd. (supra)held that - 7. In the present case, the Revenue's main contention is that the proceedings under Section 11A(2) of Central Excise Act are not concluded. I find 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

the proceedings were initiated with the same show cause notice vide order dated 11-6-2012 in Appeal No. E/978/2010 held that proceedings under Section 11A(2) are to be treated as closed . (ii) In the case Deepak Patel (supra) held that - 2. The counsel for the respondent submits that as per the provisions of the first proviso to Section 11A(2) when a case is against an assessee is settled under Section 11A(1A), no further proceedings is maintainable against any other person to whom notice is 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

hat extent that the provisions of Section 11A(1A) of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with proviso to sub-section (2) of the said Section 11, very clearly indicates that if an assessee discharges the entire duty liability along with interest and 25% of the amount of duty liability, then the proceedings comes to an end. Provisions also indicate that there is no need for issuance of show cause notice. It is pointed out by the learned DR that in this case, the duty liability has been discharged after .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

not find any merits in the grounds raised by the Revenue that assessee may seek refund of the amount as that the entire order-in-original is set aside as the first appellate authority has considered the extension of benefits of Section 11A to the assessee only on the ground that he has paid the amount in full. If the assessee would not have paid this amount, this benefit would not have been extended to him. 7. In my view, the issue is covered by the decision of the Division Bench of the Tribuna .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Advanced Search


Latest Notifications:

    Dated      Category

20-7-2017 Cus (NT)

20-7-2017 GST CESS Rate

19-7-2017 IT

19-7-2017 IT

18-7-2017 IT

18-7-2017 CE (NT)

18-7-2017 CE

18-7-2017 GST CESS Rate

15-7-2017 Kerala SGST

14-7-2017 Andhra Pradesh SGST

14-7-2017 Cus (NT)

14-7-2017 Cus

13-7-2017 Co. Law

13-7-2017 Co. Law

13-7-2017 ADD

13-7-2017 ADD

12-7-2017 Jammu & Kashmir SGST

12-7-2017 Gujarat SGST

12-7-2017 Gujarat SGST

12-7-2017 CGST Rate

More Notifications


Latest Circulars:

21-7-2017 Goods and Services Tax

20-7-2017 Goods and Services Tax

20-7-2017 Goods and Services Tax

19-7-2017 Goods and Services Tax

19-7-2017 Income Tax

18-7-2017 Customs

17-7-2017 Customs

14-7-2017 Income Tax

13-7-2017 Central Excise

13-7-2017 Customs

More Circulars



|| 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