Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Impex Ferro Tech Ltd, Sri Virendra Kumar Jain Versus Commissioner of Central Excise-Bolpur

2016 (6) TMI 666 - CESTAT KOLKATA

Penalty against the appellant company and directors - removal of goods without payment of duty -whether the appellant are eligible to the benefit of 25% of the penalty imposed under section 11AC of CEA, 1944, since the appellant company had undisputedly paid the duty along with interest? - Held that:- This issue is covered by a plethora of cases including by the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-I vs. Krishnaram Dyeing and Finishing W .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ot see any reason for non-imposition of penalty on the Director as his role on removal of goods without payment of duty has been fairly established. However, keeping in view the amount of duty involved, personal penalty equal to the duty amount imposed on the Director is too harsh. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it is appropriate that the penalty on the appellant Sri V.K.Jain be reduced to ₹ 1,25,000/-. In view of the above, the appellant company is allowed to pay 25% of the penalt .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

al No. 191-192/BOL/2012/ dated 28.09.2012. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that search operation was conducted in the factory premises of the Appellant on 28.11.2007, resulting into recovery/seizure of incriminatory documents relating to removal of goods without payment of duty. On completion of investigation, that is, scrutiny of the records retrieved and statement recorded, show-cause cum demand notice was issued alleging clandestine manufacture and removal of finished goods namely .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and rejected the appeals. Hence, the present appeals. 4. Ld. Representative Sri S.Sarkar for the appellants submits that in the present appeals they do not dispute about the liability of duty and penalty imposed on the appellant company. However, their grievance is that while confirming penalty against the appellant company, even after payment of entire amount of duty and interest, benefit of payment of 25% of the penalty imposed has not been extended to them. Further, he submits that there 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

the appellants are entitled to get the benefit of payment of 25% of the penalty imposed under section 11AC of CEA, 1944. However, on the issue of imposition of penalty on the Director, Ld.A.R. for the revenue referred to the findings of the adjudicating authority, where in it has been categorically observed on the basis of the evidences/statements of the Deputy General Manager (Commercial), Sri Ram Sundar Singh, later ratified by the Director Sri V.K.Jain that goods were cleared without payment .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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