1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Tea Duty Penalty Reduced, Demand Upheld</h1> The demand of Rs. 48,778/- on tea clearances was confirmed due to failure to file the required undertaking as per Notification No. 41/99-C.E. The penalty ... - Demand of Rs. 48,778/- was confirmed for clearances of tea during 1-4-2000 to 16-4-2000 by denying benefit of Notification No. 41/99-C.E., dated 26-11-1999 on the ground that no undertaking was filed. The notification 'clearly states that the benefit of exemption from duty will commence from the date of undertaking with the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise as specified in condition (b).' The Tribunal held the issue is settled against the assessees by precedent in Golden Dew Tea Factory & Ors. v. CCE, Coimbatore - 2007 (219) E.L.T. 362 = 2009 (15) S.T.R. 358 (Tribunal), rejecting the contention that filing a classification list alone suffices to extend the notification benefit. However, penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was set aside: on the facts the assessees had filed a declaration for the previous financial year, filed classification lists stating intent to avail Notification No. 41/99, and were under the mistaken belief that the prior declaration was sufficient, so imposition of penalty was not warranted.