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 →

Narendra Polyprints Ltd, Shri Kanayalal M. Bhanushali, Shri Neemit Punamiya, Shri Ragunath Malik And Shri Hemal Rameshbhai Desai Versus C.C.E. & Cus., Daman

2017 (5) TMI 334 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

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. - Penalty on director - Held that: - With regard .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mposed 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 the appellant Shri L. Patra, A.R. for the R .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 the appellants do not intend to contest the 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

rks 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. However, he has vehemently objected to the plea .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ction 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 the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of .....

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