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 AHMEDABAD Upholds Commissioner's Decision on Penalty Imposition Under Section 11AC</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VAPI Versus RAJ INDUSTRIES </h3> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision in a case concerning penalty imposition under Section 11AC. The ... - Issues:1. Penalty imposition under Section 11AC2. Personal penalties on partners, executives, and authorized signatories3. Wrongful availment of Cenvat credit without receiving inputsPenalty imposition under Section 11AC:The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD addressed the issue of penalty imposition under Section 11AC in the case filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner had set aside the remaining penalty as the appellants had paid duty, interest, and 25% of the penalty within thirty days. The Revenue cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors, but the Tribunal noted that the Commissioner had invoked the first proviso to Section 11AC, which states that if 25% of the penalty is paid within thirty days, the balance penalty is not to be upheld. The Tribunal found no fault in the Commissioner's decision regarding the main unit, M/s. Raj Industries.Personal penalties on partners, executives, and authorized signatories:The Appellate Authority also considered the imposition of penalties on the partner, executive, and authorized signatory of the firm. It was noted that Rule 13 of Cenvat Credit Rules does not provide for personal penalties, as established in the case of Scor Tour Impex. Additionally, the allegations against M/s. Raj Industries involved wrongful availment of Cenvat credit without actually receiving the inputs. Referring to the Tribunal's decision in the case of Steel Tubes, it was held that penalties cannot be imposed without dealing with the goods. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order regarding personal penalties, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were rejected.This judgment highlights the Tribunal's detailed analysis of penalty imposition under Section 11AC and the limitations on imposing personal penalties on partners, executives, and authorized signatories. The decision emphasizes the importance of actual dealing with goods in penalty imposition cases related to wrongful availment of Cenvat credit without receiving inputs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
