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

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (1) TMI 263

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... en taken to contest the case on merit. General observation has been made regarding lack of evidence and non- application of extended period etc. Benefit of reduced penalty - Held that: - in case duty demanded along with the interest is paid within 30 days of communication of the order, the amount of penalty to be paid shall be 25% of the penalty imposed subject to the condition that such reduced penalty is also paid within the period so specified. In the present case, the appellants did not discharge the full duty liability with interest along with 25% of the penalty within 30 days of receipt of the adjudication order. As such, there is no question of availing provision of reduced penalty in the present case. Extended period of limita .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e confirmed the excise duty liability of ₹ 27,19,427/- and imposed equal amount of penalty on the main appellant in terms of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and further penalties of ₹ 2 lakhs each on the two other appellants under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rule, 2002. On appeal, vide the impugned order, the demand was reduced to ₹ 18,72,204/-. The penalty on the main appellant was accordingly reduced. The penalties on the Directors were affirmed. The impugned order considered the exemption to Notification No..8/2003-CE amendment to the effect that prior to 01.03.2006 amendments, the SSI exemption was available for all type of watches without reference to MRP. He also allowed cum-duty benefit to arrive at a dut .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of watches and they did clear that with MRP of more than ₹ 500/- per piece. When asked about the details regarding raw material procurement, sale particulars and buyers details, the same could not be satisfactorily explained by the Directors. Now, the appellant is pleading that the Revenue has failed to establish to clandestine removal by bringing in evidence of procurement of raw materials, transportation, etc. We note that the nature of goods is such that detailed documentation on transportation may not be forthcoming. These are wrist watches which do not require lorries/vehicles to transport, considering the scale of operation undertaken by the main appellant. In fact, in the appeal filed by the appellants, no substantial ground h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates