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>Reduced penalty for failure to account for TMT bars under Rule 25(1)(b)</h1> <h3>M/s. Shital Ispat Versus CCE Ahmedabad</h3> M/s. Shital Ispat Versus CCE Ahmedabad - TMI Issues:1. Imposition of penalty under Rule 25(1)(b) on the appellant for not accounting for TMT bars received.2. Consideration of whether the penalty imposed is justifiable given the circumstances of the case.Analysis:1. The judgment deals with the imposition of a penalty on the appellant, a registered dealer, for not accounting for TMT bars received from a manufacturer without payment of duty and without the cover of a central excise invoice. The penalty was imposed under Rule 25(1)(b) on the grounds that the appellant knowingly received goods that were not duty paid and failed to reflect the material received in any of their accounts. The appellant argued that the offence was minor, no intention to pass on cenvat credit existed, and there was proper accountal for other goods. The appellant also highlighted that the supplier of the goods accepted liability and discharged the duty, with no further proceedings initiated against the manufacturer. The judge noted the absence of evidence showing cenvat credit passing and the lack of intention to pass on such credit. Additionally, no allegations of improper account maintenance or improper passing on of cenvat credit were made against the appellant.2. After considering the submissions and circumstances of the case, the judge found the penalty equal to the duty imposed on the appellant to be excessively harsh. The judge acknowledged that no proceedings were initiated against the manufacturer and that penalties on other issues for the appellant had been dropped. Given these factors and the absence of allegations regarding improper account maintenance or cenvat credit passing, the judge deemed a lenient view appropriate. Consequently, the penalty was reduced from Rs.1,30,275/- to Rs.10,000/-, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly. The judge emphasized the need for a balanced approach in determining penalties, especially when considering the specific circumstances and evidence presented in each case.
TaxTMI 