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 →

Shri Amit Vallabharay Pandit Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashi

2016 (8) TMI 442 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Imposition of penalty on partner - wrong availment of Cenvat credit by partnership firm - steel scrap received by the partnership firm is not capable of being used for re-rolling purpose - partnership firm have without contesting the matter, reversed the entire Cenvat Credit and did not litigate the matter. - Held that:- it is found that the present appellant has shown his ignorance about the nature of the product. From the statement it is revealed that though he has not admitted regarding .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

final product, it is also fact that the partnership firm of the appellant admittedly paid the entire amount of Cenvat Credit and have not contested. Therefore, the penalty of ₹ 2 lakhs imposed on the appellant is on higher side and be reduced to ₹ 50,000/-. - Decided partly in favour of appellant - Appeal No. E/1606/2010 - Order No. A/86327/16/SMB - Dated:- 24-2-2016 - SHRI RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) For the Petitioner : Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

crap received by the partnership firm is not capable of being used for re-rolling purpose. The statement of the present appellant who is a partner of the partnership firm was recorded on dt.22.8.2008 wherein he confirmed receipt of the waste and scrap from the dealers located at pune and availed cenvat credit on receipt of the same in the factory. On the question put before him that which type of material was procured by them, he, in his exculpatory reply, asserted that being old matter he is no .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f ₹ 2 lakhs under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules. Against the adjudication order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which was rejected by the impugned order, therefore the appellant is before me. 3. Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant in his statement not admitted regarding the wrong availment of credit. As per his statement he has not able to recollect regarding the nature of the material receipt. Ld. Coun .....

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 case of Commissioner of Customs (E.P.) Vs. Jupiter Exports 2007 (213) ELT 641 (Bom.) 4. On the other hand, Shri N. N. Prabhudesai, Ld. Superintendent (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that the present appellant was penalized for his own fault that he was aware about the nature of the goods, despite this fact, the credit was availed. Even though the penalty was imposed on the partnership firm but personal penalty for his indepe .....

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