Just a moment...

Report
ReportReport
Welcome to TaxTMI

We're migrating from taxmanagementindia.com to taxtmi.com and wish to make this transition convenient for you. We welcome your feedback and suggestions. Please report any errors you encounter so we can address them promptly.

Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Report an Error
Type of Error :
Please tell us about the error :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home /

2017 (6) TMI 940

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 14.1.2009 passed by the Commissioner (A) wherein the Commissioner (A) has reduced the penalty from Rs. 6,75,535/- to Rs. 1,20,000/- only. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants are small scale manufacturers of ayurvedic cough syrup falling under subheading 3003.39 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ral Excise procedures. They also failed to inform the Department about the fact of manufacture of excisable goods and payment of duty and did not file any returns as required under the Central Excise Rules. On verification of the records maintained by the appellant, it was noticed that their entire products were sold through M/s. Leela Pharma which is owned by the unmarried daughter of the proprie....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e service tax paid and eligible CENVAT credit to adjust towards the short-levy worked out on the basis of the documents/evidences produced by the appellant within one month's time by Order-in-Appeal. Further, the appellant was allowed to avail the benefit of 25% of the penalty as available in the first proviso to Section 11AC. Thereafter the lower authority decided the case as per the direction of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n 11A proviso of the Act was not justified. He further submitted that the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC by invoking the extended period alleging suppression is not justified as there was no mis-representation on the part of the appellant and the appellant had a bona fide belief that his product is not excisable. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submi....