Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Saroj Barik Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore

2017 (2) TMI 1259 - CESTAT BANGALORE

Pre-deposit - Section 35F of the Central Excise Act - Circular of the CESTAT dated 28-8-2014 - Rule 6A of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 - Held that: - there is no provision in the Central Excise Act, 1944 and CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, CESTAT c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

atory pre-deposit specified in the Section” - in view the statutory provision under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, we direct all the applicants in these appeals to make mandatory pre-deposit of 7.5%/10% as the case may be. - E/21120-211 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

spondent. ORDER [Order per : S.S. Garg, Member (J)]. - The applicants filed these appeals without making pre-deposit of 7.5%/10% of the duty demand. The Registry issued the defect memo stating that pre-deposit under Section 35F had not been made by 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

mmissioner of Central Excise vide his adjudication Order-in-Original dated 31-3-2016 has demanded duty on the company for an amount of ₹ 2,78,94,645/- and imposed penalty on the company and its officials who are working in various capacities an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er stated that the amount to be pre-deposited by the company is ₹ 27,89,464/-. All the officials who are working in the company and its associated companies and who have dealt with the goods of the company against whom penalties have been 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

and accordingly the appellants should not be directed to make a pre-deposit of 7.5%/10% as the case may be. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. The learned counsel for the applicants stated that the deposit made on behalf .....

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 the learned AR vehemently opposed the claim of the appellant and submitted that the amendment to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act warrants payment of deposit of 7.5%/10% of the duty or penalty imposed under the impugned order for filing the 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

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version