TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
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>Tribunal Overturns Penalty on Manufacturer, Emphasizes Importance of Considering Submissions</h1> <h3>M/s. Bhilai Engineering Co. Ltd. Versus CCE, Raipur</h3> The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's penalty imposition under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1944 on the Appellant, engaged in manufacturing ... “Consulting Engineering” – delay in payment of tax – in revision order CCE imposed penalty u/s 76 following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ETA Engineering Ltd. - Commissioner had not discussed the facts of the case before imposing penalty - It is well settled that the imposition of penalty is based on the facts and law of the case – impugned order was passed without considering the submission of the Appellant - impugned order is set aside - matter is remanded to Commissioner Issues:Imposition of penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1944 based on the definition of 'Consulting Engineering' and the Commissioner's failure to consider the Appellant's submissions before imposing the penalty.Analysis:The appeal was filed against the penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1944. The Appellant, engaged in manufacturing engineering goods, argued that their activities did not fall under the definition of 'Consulting Engineering.' Despite depositing the tax to avoid legal issues, the Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs.1,35,000. The Appellant cited Tribunal decisions to support their position. The Departmental Representative contended that the Appellant delayed tax payment, justifying the penalty. However, the Commissioner's order lacked a discussion on the case's facts and circumstances, which is crucial for penalty imposition. The Tribunal referred to a previous case law where penalties under Section 76 were specified. Since the Commissioner did not consider the Appellant's submissions, the order was deemed unsustainable. Consequently, the order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh decision after considering the Appellant's submissions. The appeal was allowed for remand.
TaxTMI 
