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

2016 (9) TMI 180 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2016 (9) TMI 180 - CESTAT MUMBAI - TMI - Imposition of penalty - belated payment of duty under Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules - duty liability discharged belatedly with interest in April 2001, December 2001 and July 2002 on their own for the month of March 2001 to November 2001 - Held that:- the respondent having discharged the duty liability and interest thereof, before issuance of show-cause notice, provisions of Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 will apply in its full force that .....

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 considered. Hence, the conclusion reached by the Commissioner (Appeals) that no penalty is imposable is correct albeit the reasoning being erroneous. - Decided against the Revenue - Appeal No. E/1309/05 E/CO/399/05 - A/89918-89919/16/EB - Dated:- 3-8-2016 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Shri Ajay Kumar, Jt. Commr (AR) for appellant Shri P.V. Sadavarte, Advocate for respondent ORDER Per M. V. Ravindran This appeal is filed by Revenue against Or .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

November 2001 within the period as per the provisions of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The respondent had discharged the duty liability for the period in question with interest in April 2001, December 2001 and July 2002. A show-cause notice was issued on 20.10.2003 which was received by the respondent on 27.10.2003 and the said show-cause notice sought to be imposed penalty on the respondent for belated payment of duty under Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules. Penalty was sought to be im .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ECC-180 (Tri. LB) held the field. 4. Learned A.R. would take us through the case records and submit that the respondent had delayed the payment of duty which should have been done before 5th of every month and for the month of March should have been paid before 31st March. He submits that the penalty imposed is correct and should not have been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) as the judgement of Machino Montell (I) Ltd. (supra) has been set aside by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. H .....

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 extended period for imposition of penalty under erstwhile Rules 173Q read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He would submit that the issue is covered under Section 11A (2B) of Central Excise Act, 1944. He would rely upon the Tribunal s decision in the case of Global Drilling Fluids & Chemicals Ltd. 2004 (177) ELT 646 (Tri. Mum) and Ispat Industries Ltd. 2012 (275) ELT 456 (Tri. Mum). 6. We have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. 7. We .....

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