TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Upholds Penalties in Central Excise Case, Rejects Appeal for Mistake Rectification</h1> The Tribunal upheld the penalties imposed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur, rejecting the applicants' appeal for rectification of mistake. It ... Rectification of mistake Issues:Rectification of mistake in the final order arising out of appeals filed against the order imposing penalties under the Central Excise Rules.Analysis:The appeal for rectification of mistake stemmed from Final Order Nos. A/1042-44-NB, dated 17-11-1999, which rejected the appeals against penalties imposed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur. The applicants contended that the Tribunal overlooked the provisions of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1998, related to pending adjudication. They argued that the settlement under the Scheme should cover partners on whom penalties were imposed, and the Tribunal erred in confirming the penalties. The applicants sought correction, claiming that the penalties against them should be set aside. The respondent opposed, stating that the Tribunal correctly interpreted the Trade Notice No. 36/98, indicating that the show cause notice had been adjudicated and penalties were justified. The respondent argued that all arguments against penal action had been considered by the Tribunal, and no mistake existed in the Final Order.Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal analyzed the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1998, and Trade Notice No. 36/98. The Tribunal found that the Trade Notice aligned with the Scheme, referencing pending show cause notices. It concluded that the final order did not overlook the statutory provisions of the Scheme, as claimed by the applicants. The Tribunal also dismissed the argument that the applicants were prevented from arguing against the penalties on merits. It clarified that the applicants' arguments regarding the partnership firm's liability under the Scheme had been duly addressed and ruled upon. Therefore, the Tribunal held that no mistake was evident in the Final Order and rejected the applications for rectification.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
