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 →

The Commissioner of Central Excise Versus M/s. Southern Polymers Industrial Corporation, Shri N. Ramachandran, Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal

2016 (10) TMI 26 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Demand - failure to pay duty - Held that:- since the Respondents have not disputed the liability to pay Duty, there was no necessity for the Tribunal to examine the correctness of the adjudication in that regard. - Imposition of penalty - Rule 209A of the Rules - there was no evidence brought forth to link Shri N.Ramachandran, for the alleged violations - Held that:- Rule 209A of the Rules, has specifically required that any person, who deals with any Excisable goods which he knows or has re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s in which event alone the penalty contemplated by Rule 209A of the Rules, can be imposed. Since there was no material to link Shri N.Ramachandran, with any such acts enumerated under Rule 209A of the Rules, the penalty imposed against him under Rule 209A of the Rules, is liable to be set at naught and that was the reason why the Tribunal has rightly set aside that portion of the Order in Original passed by the adjudicating Authority. - Imposition of penalty - Rule 173Q of the Rules - Tribun .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

It is therefore, obvious that instead of remitting the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for consider afresh, even with regard to the penalty that is liable to be imposed under Rule 173Q of the Rules and furthermore with a view to shorten the litigation between the parties, the Tribunal has reduced the penalty from ₹ 1,00,000/- to ₹ 50,000/- and the Respondent/Manufacturer has not called in question that part of the order of the Tribunal and he has accepted it. Therefore, we see n .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ice Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zone Bench, Chennai, rendered in Final Order No.1263 of 2005 and 1264 of 2005 dated 12.09.2005. 2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was admitted by a Division Bench of this Court on 28.04.2006 to consider the following substantial questions of law:- "(i) Whether the Tribunal has acted upon law by passing order of remand to the adjudicating authority when the point of dispute raised before them has already been elaborately reasoned out? (ii) Whether the order .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is agreeable, in view of the existing penal provisions under the law?" 3. Heard Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the Department as well as Mr.Jayachandren, learned counsel for the Respondent/Manufacturer. 4. The controversy in this appeal lies in a very narrow campus. The first Respondent being the manufacturer of Excisable goods, has been proceeded against and the adjudicating authority has raised a demand of ₹ 22,19,949/- from the Respondents, in terms of Rule 9(1) rea .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of ₹ 2,00,000/- under Rule 209A of the Rules. That Order-in-Original dated 16.03.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai II Commissionerate, was challenged before the Tribunal referred to supra. 5. It is not in dispute that the relevant provisions under Section 11AC was not available on the statute book when the alleged failure to pay the Duty at the time of the clearance of the goods manufactured. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly set aside that part of the Order-in-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

e 209A of the Rules, has specifically required that any person, who deals with any Excisable goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under the Act or Rules made thereunder, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding three times the value of such goods or ₹ 5,000/- whichever is greater, if he is in any way concerned in transporting, removing or depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing or in any other manner deals with such goods. Therefore, it .....

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