GST Helpdesk   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
GST - Acts GST Rules SGST - Acts GST Rates CGST Notif. SGST Notif. Customs Tariff Exempt Income Salary income
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2017 (4) TMI 938 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

2017 (4) TMI 938 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD - TMI - Penalty - whether simultaneous penalty u/r 25 of CER, 2002 and Section 11AC of the CEA, 1944, can be imposed? - Held that: - from the very language of the Rule, it is evident that the scheme of the Act read with the Rules, does not provide for two separate penalties, one u/s 11AC of the CEA, 1944 and another u/r 25 of the CER, 2002 - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - APPEAL No. E/131/2009-EX[SM] With CROSS Application No. E/CROSS/54/2009 - .....

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, 2002 and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, cannot be imposed, does not appear to be legally correct, as there is no restriction in the Central Excise law that penalties cannot be imposed under Section 11AC & Rule 25 of the rules independently. 2. Heard ld. A. R. for Revenue who has taken me through the facts on record and the findings of the Additional Commissioner in the Order-in-Original and the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the Order-in-Appeal. Further, relied on the ruling .....

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 on the ruling in the case of Sanden Vikas India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi -IV reported at 2004 (176) E.L.T. 708 (Tri. - Delhi) wherein it was held - rejecting the appeal of the appellant-assessee and upholding penalty under Section 11AC of the Act, is correct, this Tribunal following the ratio of judgement of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar Versus Union of India reported at 1999 (112) E.L.T. 772 (S. C.) wherein it was held that the impos .....

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 for the respondent-assessee relies on the impugned order and the cross objections, which are in support of the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 4. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of record, I find from the plain language of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, which reads - (i) Subject to the provisions of Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, if any producer, manufacturer, registered person of a warehouse or an importer who issues an invoice, on which Cenvat credit .....

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