Imposition of penalty - when the main appeal has been dismissed, ...

Central Excise

December 17, 2015

Imposition of penalty - when the main appeal has been dismissed, there is no question of interfering with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal on the question of penalty on the Managing Director - HC

View Source

← Previous Next →

Imposition of penalty - when the main appeal has been dismissed, ...

Central Excise

December 17, 2015

You may also like:

Imposition of penalty - Misdeclaration of goods - Abetment in pilferage – whatever leniency he deserves, is already meted out to him at the hands of Tribunal -...

Imposition of penalty - If the proceedings of demand of duty and confiscation were made against main party and the same being dropped, subsequent parties are also not...

Penalty proceedings - Commissioner is not justified in exercising his suo motu powers to interfere with a discretionary order passed by the original authority to impose...

Tribunal dismissed the appeal despite the adjournment sought by the appellant - The order passed by the Tribunal being contrary to the principles of natural justice - HC

Demand of service tax - The appellant argued that it was engaged in the construction of false ceilings and was a sub-contractor for the main contractor, who had...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - When the addition was set aside, there was no question of imposition of penalty - HC

Penalty under section 271C - Only because the assessee before the Tribunal had accepted her liability for deduction of tax at source, cannot be the sole basis for...

Merger of order passed u/s 254(2) with main order of Tribunal - set off of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation - the order passed in the miscellaneous...

Fixation of remuneration of liquidator - The Appellate Tribunal recognized the efforts made by the liquidator in attempting to manage the corporate debtor's affairs...

Penalty imposed u/s 112(a) - Import confectionary items from Dubai - immunity from prosecution and fine/penalty - Tribunal held that since the appellant was a co-noticee...

Quick Updates: