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>Tribunal decision confirms duty demand, denies rectification, exempts legal heir from penalty, and grants rectification application.</h1> The Tribunal upheld the duty demand amount and penalty as confirmed in the original order, denying the applicant's request for rectification due to lack ... Rectification of mistake - Appellant filed ROM application on the ground of quantification of duty and penalty amount can't recover from the legal heir in case death of accused - First ground is dismissed and on second ground ROM allowed Issues: Rectification of mistake in final order regarding duty demand amount and legal heir's liability for penalty payment.The judgment addresses two main issues. Firstly, the applicant sought rectification of a mistake in the final order regarding the duty demand amount. The applicant argued that the duty demand should be Rs. 3,15,000 instead of Rs. 3,47,980, but failed to provide any grounds or data to support this claim. The Tribunal noted that since the merits of the appeal had already been discussed and rejected, the duty amount and penalty as confirmed in the original order would stand, and the applicant could not re-agitate the issue at this stage.Secondly, the judgment dealt with the issue of the liability of the legal heir for penalty payment after the proprietor of the company passed away. The applicant, as the legal heir of the deceased proprietor, argued that the penalty should not be recoverable from him. The applicant presented the death certificate of the deceased and referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court stating that penalty cannot be recovered from the legal representative of the accused if the accused has passed away before recovery of the penalty amount. The Tribunal accepted the evidence provided by the applicant, acknowledged the death of the proprietor, and concluded that the penalty was not recoverable from the legal heir. Since the duty had already been deposited with the department, the penalty could not be recovered from the applicant. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the rectification of mistake application in favor of the applicant.