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>Penalties under Rule 209A overturned due to lack of specific findings; appellants not liable under KVS Scheme</h1> <h3>Broadway Textiles Ltd. Versus Versus Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur</h3> Broadway Textiles Ltd. Versus Versus Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur - TMI Issues Involved:Imposition of penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules 1944 without specific findings on individual roles and applicability of the KVS Scheme.Analysis:The appeals were filed against a common impugned order where a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- each was imposed on the appellants under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules 1944. The appellant contended that the Commissioner of Central Excise did not provide any findings regarding their role in evading duty. The adjudicating authority merely highlighted the appellant's involvement without discussing their individual roles. The appellant argued that there was no finding to show contravention of any provisions of the Central Excise Rules against them.The appellant further pointed out that the duty was confirmed on another entity, and their dispute was settled under the KVS Scheme. Referring to a similar case, the appellant argued that since the main manufacturer's appeal was settled under the KVS Scheme, it would not be just to hold the appellants guilty of contravening the Central Excise law. The appellant requested the appeal to be allowed.On the other hand, the respondent argued that the show cause notice clearly described the role of each appellant, and as they did not reply to the notice, their roles were considered by the adjudicating authority. The respondent emphasized that the appellants did not file any declaration under the KVS Scheme, unlike the main manufacturer, and thus were not entitled to its benefits. The respondent relied on the instructions and sections of the KVS Scheme to support their argument for dismissing the appeal.After hearing both sides, it was observed that the adjudicating authority did not provide specific findings on how each appellant was liable to pay the penalty under Rule 209A. Considering the precedent where penalties were set aside due to the settlement of the main party's dispute under the KVS Scheme, the penalties imposed on the appellants were set aside, and the appeals were allowed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
