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 NCL Industries Ltd. Versus The Commissioner C.C.E & ST, Guntur

Imposition of penalty - Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules 2004 - duty evasion - default in payment of duty - one day in an instance and two days in another instance owing to severe financial difficulties - Held that:- by respectfully following the decision of Tribunal in the case of M/s Annapurna Earcanal Ltd V/s Commissioner of customs and C.E., Hyderabad [2016 (9) TMI 1113 - CESTAT HYDERABAD], the impugned order to the extent of imposition of penalty under Rule 25(1) of Central Excise Rules .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

or the months of June 2012 and July 2012 on 06-08-2012 and 07-09-2012, instead of due dates on 06-07-2012 and 06-08-2012 respectively. Show Cause Notice dated 27-01-2014 was issued by the Additional Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad-III Commissionerate, Hyderabad treating the goods valued at ₹ 2,14,33,038/- cleared on 06-08-2012, 06-09-2012 and 07-09-2012 by not paying the duty in Account Current consignment wise, as clearances made without payment of duty and proposed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ignment wise in current account and by irregularly paying duty by utilizing CENVAT credit should be treated as goods cleared without payment of duty and imposed redemption fine of ₹ 1,00,000/- in lieu of confiscation; confirmed the demand of CE duty of ₹ 28,33,350/- in terms of Sub Section (1) of Section 11A of CEA along with interest at applicable rate under Section 11AA of CEA; appropriated ₹ 28,33,350/- towards duty and ₹ 2,340/- towards interest; and imposed penalty o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o have seen that the default is only for one day in an instance and two days in another instance owing to severe financial difficulties and there was no intention on the part of the appellant to evade payment of duty the provisions of Rule 25 are not attracted. 3.2 The learned Commissioner even otherwise failed to give a finding as to how the judgement of the Honourable High Court of Gujarat in the case of CCE V/s Saurashtra Cements Limited reported in 2010 (260) ELT 71 (T) is not applicable. 4. .....

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 Annapurna Earcanal decision cited supra is reproduced below for better understanding: 1. The short issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is the imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2004 for the contravention of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2004. 2. The appellants are manufacturers of RBE panel board and are registered with Central Excise Department. It is their case that due to acute financial constraints the duty liability for the month of Jul .....

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