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>CESTAT Appeal Outcome: Duty upheld, penalty reduced.</h1> <h3>THIRVEN STEELS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TIRUPATHI</h3> THIRVEN STEELS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TIRUPATHI - 2005 (191) E.L.T. 744 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues:- Rejection of abatement claims under Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944- Commissioner's decision to demand duty and impose penalty along with interest- Validity of the order passed by the Commissioner- Reduction of penalty amountAnalysis:The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore stemmed from the Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirupathi's rejection of abatement claims for a specific period due to the alleged failure to meet conditions under Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Commissioner not only rejected the abatement claims but also confirmed a demand of Rs. 7,41,200/- as duty payable for the periods where abatement claims were disallowed. Additionally, a penalty equal to the duty amount was imposed. The appellants contended that the Commissioner exceeded authority by demanding duty and imposing a penalty beyond the scope of the show cause notice issued on 23-8-2001. However, the Tribunal found no merit in this argument as the Commissioner, post a Tribunal remand, had the jurisdiction to address both the abatement claims and the show cause notice from 26-2-1999 proposing a duty recovery of Rs. 21 lakhs.Furthermore, the appellants claimed that the order was passed ex-parte, but the Commissioner's record of the appellant's appearance for a personal hearing on 3-3-2003, where the points raised in response to the show cause notice were reiterated, negated this contention. The Tribunal, after due consideration, upheld the confirmation of duty and interest, indicating that the appellant failed to establish a case. However, the penalty amount was reduced from the initially imposed sum to Rs. 1,50,000/-. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed, affirming the duty and interest while modifying the penalty amount. This comprehensive analysis highlights the Tribunal's assessment of the issues concerning abatement claims, duty demand, penalty imposition, and the validity of the Commissioner's order, ultimately resulting in a partial allowance of the appeal.
TaxTMI 