Evasion of duty - Ignorance of law - Imposition of penalty u/s ...

Central Excise

March 23, 2015

Evasion of duty - Ignorance of law - Imposition of penalty u/s 11AC - Taking note of the specific provision of Section 11AC where there is a specific mandate that the assessee shall be liable to pay penalty, the mere payment of duty even after the show cause notice is not a ground to waive penalty - HC

View Source

← Previous Next →

Evasion of duty - Ignorance of law - Imposition of penalty u/s ...

Central Excise

March 23, 2015

You may also like:

Penalty - ignorance of law - misguidance by the Consultant - ignorance of law is enough to set-aside penalty under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 - AT

Levy of penalty u/s 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 - duty liability from January 2009 onwards was being discharged on lower values by applying appropriate rate of duty...

Mandatory penalty u/s 11AC - if there is no intent to evade payment of duty, no penalty u/s 11AC - HC

Penalty u/s 11AC of CEA, 1944 - it is not a case of wrong availment/utilization of cenvat credit but the demand under Rule 6(3A). Therefore, Rule 14 is not applicable -...

Proof of malafide is an essential requisite for imposition of penalty under Rule 15(2) read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act - AT

Confiscation of goods - Incomplete entry in RG-1 register - confiscation of the goods, redemption fine and imposition of penalty on the appellant company u/s 11AC upheld - AT

Penalty u/s 11AC - Section 11AC of Central Excise Act is not applicable to every case of non-payment or short-payment of duty - Conditions mentioned in Section 11AC...

Penalty u/s 11AC - Duty was paid before issuance of SCN - This only points to wilful misstatement and suppression of facts on the part of the appellant - Penalty confirmed - AT

Levy of penalty - mandatory penalty u/s 11AC - where demand beyond the normal period of limitation has been dropped there is no case for levy of penalty u/s 11AC - AT

CE - imposition of penalties one on the proprietorship firm and second on the proprietor would amount to imposition of penalty twice, which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law

Quick Updates: