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

2016 (6) TMI 609 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

2016 (6) TMI 609 - CESTAT HYDERABAD - TMI - Non imposition of equal amount of penalty under Section 11 AC - main contention raised by Revenue is that when the demand is confirmed, the penalty should be equal to the demand confirmed - Held that:- AR is using the words confirmation of demand and determination of duty interchangeably. We cannot agree to this submission. Section 11 AC uses the word duty as determined . The Commissioner (Appeals) has relied on several judgments while upholding the vi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Decided in favour of assessee - Appeal No. E/28314/2013 - Dated:- 1-4-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S. Member(Judicial) Shri P.Muthu Swamy, AR for the Appellant Shri R.Muralidhar, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER [ Order per Sulekha Beevi, C.S. ] 1. The grievance of Revenue in this appeal is that lower authority failed to impose equal amount of penalty under Section 11 AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The respondents were issued a show cause notice alleging undervaluation and proposing demand o .....

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 pouches. The original authority held that respondents are eligible for credit on the polyester film to the tune of ₹ 29,82,172/-. After deducting such Cenvat credit, the duty liability was arrived at ₹ 5,36,375/- by the original authority. An equal amount of penalty was imposed under 11 AC of the Central Excise Act. The department filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) raising the contention that original authority ought not to have given the benefit of Cenvat credit and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tment was dismissed upholding the order passed by original authority. 4. In the present appeal Revenue challenges the imposition of lesser amount of penalty only and does not challenge the determination of duty ie. the challenge in this appeal is that the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have imposed penalty of ₹ 35,18,547/-. 5. On behalf of the appellant/Revenue, the learned AR Shri P.Muthuswamy submitted as original authority confirmed the demand of ₹ 35,18,547/- the penalty imposed .....

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