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. Vardhman Polypacks, Shri Haresh D. Shah, Shri Satyendra R. Yadav Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Daman

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 condition laid down in the said Order, accordingly, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 three appeals are filed against OIA-SRP-216- .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed 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-noticees by reducing their penalty, but rejected t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t, 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 of the employer and penalty imposed on him is .....

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