New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2017 (5) TMI 334 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

2017 (5) TMI 334 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - TMI - Penalty u/s 11AC on the company - appeal was earlier dismissed on the ground of non-supply of relevant documents namely, statements, Panchnama etc. relying which allegation of clandestine removal was made - Held that: - the authorities below even though imposed penalty under Section 11AC of CEA, 1944, however, not extended the benefit of discharging 25% of the penalty imposed on fulfillment of the conditions laid down under the said provision. - Pe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ployees seems to be little harsh - penalty imposed on each of the employees namely, Shri Raghunath Malik and Shri Hemal Rameshbhai Desai is reduced from ₹ 1.50 lakh and ₹ 1.0 lakh to ₹ 50,000/-. - Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. - Restoration Applications No.10100, 10099, 10098, 10097, 10096 of 2017 and Central Excise Appeal No.637 to 641 of 2010-SM - A/10897-10901/2017 - Dated:- 2-5-2017 - Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) Shri N.K. Oza, Advocate for .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

not available with them now and in support, he has filed an affidavit of the Director of the Company. He submits that the case may be decided on the basis of the findings recorded in the impugned order. 3. Ld. A.R. for the Revenue has no objection. 4. In the result, the order dismissing the appeals earlier as non-maintainable is recalled and the appeals are restored to its original numbers and taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides. 5. Ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that 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 I vs. Krishnaram Dyeing & Finishing works 2013 (298) ELT 376 (Guj.). He further submits that personal penalty imposed on the Director, employees and transporter is too harsh. Hence, a lenient view may be taken and penalty imposed on these persons be reduced. 5. Per contra, ld. A.R. for the Revenue fairly accepted that the benefit to discharge of 25% of the penalty imposed under Sec.11AC of CEA,1944 was not extended to them by the authorities below and he has no objection for the same. Howe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

itted that employees have carried out instruction of the employer and they have no personal gain from the said activity. Therefore, looking into remuneration/salary they receive, penalty imposed on each of the employee is too harsh. 7. I find that the authorities below even though imposed penalty under Section 11AC of CEA, 1944, however, not extended the benefit of discharging 25% of the penalty imposed on fulfillment of the conditions laid down under the said provision. In view of judgment of 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

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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