New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (6) TMI 666 - CESTAT KOLKATA

2016 (6) TMI 666 - CESTAT KOLKATA - TMI - 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, Sur .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

id statements. In these circumstance, do not 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 c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ppeals are filed against the Order-in-Appeal 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 manufa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ld the order of the adjudicating authority 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 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

i S.S.Chatterjee has fairly accepted that 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.Jai .....

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