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 →

Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs Versus M/s. Mecon Prefabs

2017 (2) TMI 437 - CESTAT BANGALORE

Imposition of penalty - clearance of goods under SSI exemption without payment of excise duty even after crossing the SSI exemption limit of ₹ 1/- crore as specified under Notification No.8/2003 dated 1.3.2003 - Held that: - reliance placed in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/359/2007-DB - Dated:- 7-2-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Technical Member Shri Pakshirajan, AR For the Appellant None For the Respondent ORDER Per V. Padmanabhan The present ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt removed the goods without payment of excise duty even after crossing the SSI emption limit of ₹ 1/- crore as specified under Notification No.8/2003 dated 1.3.2003, the departmental officers carried out verification of records of the assessee .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d was permitted to be adjusted against CENVAT credit of ₹ 22,18,421/- and the balance amount was appropriated out of the amount already deposited by the respondent. The applicable interest also stands paid by the respondent. The learned Commiss .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ndent. 3. The learned DR while reiterating the grounds advanced by the Revenue, submitted that the excise duty demand has been confirmed in the impugned order by upholding the allegation of suppression on the part of the respondent and invoking the e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

gs in the impugned order confirming the demand of excise duty with interest and appropriating the duty and interest already paid by the respondent. The learned Commissioner has given the following reasons for non-imposition of penalty. 28. The next i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

elief that M/s. KSEB was liable to pay the excise duty and not their company and as soon as they came to know of the legal requirements, they had approached the department for taking out the registration. Further, at the stage of investigation itself .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

iew of their conduct subsequent to the detection of the case. The Hon ble Appellate Tribunal in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vishakaptnam [2003 (161) ELT 285] had held that penalty is not imposable when d .....

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