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 Chennai Upholds Duty Payment, Rejects Penalty & Interest Imposition in Appeal</h1> <h3>INDIA JAPAN LIGHTING LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHENNAI</h3> The CESTAT CHENNAI, comprising Judges Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram and Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, upheld an impugned order in an appeal where an appellant ... - The appellate tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI, with Judges Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram and Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, heard appeals from both an appellant and the department regarding an impugned order. The appellant, represented by Shri K.S. Venkatagiri, conceded the demand of duty and payment but contested a penalty. The department appealed the interest and penalty imposed under Sections 11AB and 11AC. The tribunal found the issue similar to a Supreme Court case, CCE, Pune v. SKF India Ltd., where the court ruled that payment of differential duty later is unintentional and not fraudulent, warranting interest but not penalty. The tribunal agreed with this precedent, concluding that no penalty was justified in this case. The tribunal also upheld a token penalty for contravening Rule 173F, as the appellant was obligated to pay the full duty upon removal. Ultimately, the tribunal upheld the impugned order and dismissed both appeals. The decision was announced on 24-9-2009.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
