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>Court affirms Tribunal decisions on fine reduction, duty deletion, and penalty lowering. Appeal dismissed.</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Versus VM ROLLING MILLS</h3> COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Versus VM ROLLING MILLS - 2009 (236) E.L.T. 443 (Del.) Issues:1. Reduction of redemption fine from Rs. 3,75,000/- to Rs. 35,0002. Deletion of duty of Rs. 22,000/- imposed on account of shortage of goods3. Reduction in penalty to Rs. 30,000/-Analysis:1. The appellant contended that the Tribunal's judgment was erroneous in reducing the redemption fine, deleting the duty imposed for goods shortage, and lowering the penalty amount. However, the court disagreed with the appellant's arguments. The Tribunal considered various factors, such as timely duty payment, production of invoices, and availability of funds for duty discharge, before reducing the redemption fine. The court found no reason to disagree with the Tribunal's decision, stating that the Tribunal appropriately exercised its discretion in the matter.2. Regarding the deletion of the demand for Rs. 22,829 due to goods shortage, the Tribunal found that no panchnama was prepared when officers visited the factory, and there was no evidence of clandestine removal of goods. Consequently, the Tribunal rightfully deleted the duty demand related to the goods found short. The court concurred with this factual finding by the Tribunal.3. The issue of penalty reduction was raised by the respondent's counsel, arguing that a significant portion of the penalty was not imposed under Section 11AC but under a different rule. The Tribunal's decision to reduce the penalty was upheld by the court as the Department did not challenge this aspect in the appeal. The court noted that the duty was paid within the specified time, and part of the demand was unsustainable. Consequently, the court found no substantial legal question for consideration and dismissed the appeal.In conclusion, the court upheld the Tribunal's decisions on all three issues, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments and dismissing the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
