Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Akeyem Sons Versus Commissioner of Central Excise

2016 (7) TMI 550 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - non mention of dimensions of goods supplied - Held that:- The adjudicating authority has imposed penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- on the appellant. The lower authorities have come to a conclusion .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

been mentioned on the invoices. This would not mean that the penalty needs to be set aside as there is contravention of rules. While upholding the penalty on the appellant reduce the penalty from ₹ 1,00,000/- to ₹ 50,000/- and dispose 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

, Asst. Commr (AR) ORDER Per: M.V. Ravindran This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal P-II/VSGRRAO/72 to 75/2011 dated 29.08.2011 vide which penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- has been upheld by the first appellate authority under the provisions 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

thorities, had only issued the invoices for availment of CENVAT credit by M/s. Cethar Vessels Pvt. Ltd. The main noticee have also settled the issue by paying the excise duty and other penalties as well as the interest. 4. Learned Counsel submits tha .....

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 Rules, 2002 by the Budget of 2016 wherein it has been provided penal proceedings against co-noticee shall stand concluded on conclusion of proceedings against main noticee. It is also his submission that the lower authorities have not considered th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that the submissions made by the learned Counsel may not carry the case any further for the simple reason that M/s. Mahalaxmi Trading Corpn., are of identically placed appellant was in appeal against the very same order before this Tribunal in Appea .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version