TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>Company appeal partly allowed, penalty set aside. Director's appeal rejected, vehicle confiscation upheld.</h1> <h3>RAVIRAJ RE-ROLLS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., AURANGABAD</h3> RAVIRAJ RE-ROLLS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., AURANGABAD - 2005 (180) E.L.T. 366 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues involved:1. Imposition of penalty and interest under Sections 11AC and 11AB.2. Appeal of the Director regarding penalty under Rule 209A.3. Confiscation of vehicles and redemption fine amount.Analysis:1. The case involved appeals arising from the order of the Commissioner (A) dismissing the appeals of a company and its Director. The company had excisable goods intercepted without duty payment, leading to a shortage of finished goods. The duty demanded was paid before the show cause notice. The appellants argued against the imposition of penalty and interest under Sections 11AC and 11AB, contending that payment was made before the notice. The Tribunal observed that penalty and interest were not imposable since duty was paid before the notice, citing the Machino Montel decision. The Tribunal rejected the argument that in cases of clandestine removal, Sections 11AC and 11AB apply without distinction.2. Regarding the appeal of the Director, the lower appellate authority dismissed it due to lack of signature by the Director on the appeal documents. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that the appeal must be signed by the appellant. It was noted that the documents were not signed by an authorized person, leading to the rejection of the appeal.3. The appeal related to the confiscation of vehicles carrying non-duty paid goods. The Tribunal noted that the vehicle owner did not appeal, and the company appealing did not have ownership of the vehicles. The argument that the release of vehicles to the appellant granted locus standi for appeal was rejected. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the vehicles and rejected the appeal against it.In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the company's appeal by setting aside penalty and interest under Sections 11AC and 11AB, confirming the duty demand. The appeal of the Director was rejected, and the confiscation of the vehicles was upheld.
TaxTMI 