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

2016 (11) TMI 861 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

2016 (11) TMI 861 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - TMI - Clandestine removal of manufactured goods - Plastic Lay Flat Tubes, Plastic Films etc. falling under Chapter 39 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Held that: - I find that the appellant M/s. Vardhman Polypacks had paid the entire amount of duty, interest and penalty within 30 days from the date of order, accordingly, they are eligible to the benefit to discharge 25% of penalty as observed in the Order-in-Original. Since, they had complied the condit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, keeping in view the role played by him and his position in the Firm, and in the interest of justice, the penalty is reduced from ₹ 25,000/- to ₹ 10,000/- - Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/10761-10763/2013 - ORDER No. A/11124-11126/2016 - Dated:- 7-10-2016 - Dr. D.M. Misra, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) For the Appellant : Shri Raj Vyas, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri G. Jha, Authorised Representative ORDER Per Dr. D.M. Misra; These .....

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 duty. Consequently, demand notice was issued to them for recovery of the duty & interest with a proposal for penalty on them and personal penalty on other co-noticees/Appellants. On adjudication, the demand alongwith interest was confirmed with equal amount of penalty on the appellant Firm and personal penalty on other appellants were also imposed. Aggrieved by the said order, appellants preferred appeals before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who had partly allowed the appeals of co-notic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ovisions of Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. It is his contention that payment of 25% of penalty be accepted. In the case of two other appellants, ld. Advocate submits that penalty on partnership firm and on partners, simultaneously, can not be imposed in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Pravin N. Shah vs. CESTAT 2014 (305) ELT 480 (Guj.). As regards penalty on Shri Stayendra Yadav, he submits that the employees has carried out the instructions 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

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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