Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2001 (7) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2001 (7) TMI 174 - AT - Central Excise

Issues involved: Determination of assessable value based on related persons, imposition of penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q, charging of interest under Section 11AB, imposition of penalties on individuals involved.

Summary:
The case involved three appeals arising from the same order, filed by M/s. Monica Electronics Limited, Shri V.K. Gupta, and Ms. S.S. Mirchandani regarding the determination of assessable value due to the creation of another unit for marketing purposes. The Commissioner held that the marketing unit was a related person, leading to the imposition of duty, penalties, and interest. The penalties were contested on the grounds of the applicability of Section 11AC and Rule 173Q during the relevant period.

The appellants argued that since Section 11AC was not in force during the disputed period, the penalty imposed under it was not valid. They also contended that the penalties under Rule 173Q lacked apportionment and should be set aside. Additionally, they challenged the personal penalties imposed on individuals, stating that the interpretation of Central Excise rules was in dispute and the roles of the individuals were not clearly established.

The Revenue argued that the penalties on the company and individuals were justified as they were aware of the potential confiscation of goods due to the incorrect valuation. However, the Tribunal found that Section 11AC and Section 11AB were not applicable during the relevant period, leading to the setting aside of penalties imposed under these sections.

Regarding the penalties under Rule 173Q, the Tribunal noted the lack of apportionment and deemed the penalties unsustainable. However, in the case of individuals, it was found that they were aware of the incorrect valuation leading to potential confiscation, justifying the imposition of penalties. The penalties on the individuals were reduced considering the circumstances of the case. Ultimately, the appeals were disposed of with modifications to the penalties imposed on the individuals involved.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates