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 sets aside penalty in appellant's favor under Section 11AC, citing lack of intent.</h1> <h3>M/s. Talisma Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE, Bangalore</h3> M/s. Talisma Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE, Bangalore - TMI Issues:- Appeal against Commissioner(Appeals) order- Allegations of non-payment of duty on software- Invocation of extended period of limitation- Imposition of penalty under Section 11ACAnalysis:1. Appeal against Commissioner(Appeals) order:The appellant, a 100% EOU under the STPI scheme, provided CRM software solutions. An investigation by DGCEI revealed non-payment of duty on Talisma CRM software. The appellant paid duty and interest but was issued a show-cause notice proposing duty demand and penalty. The Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the order-in-original, leading to the present appeal.2. Allegations of non-payment of duty on software:The appellant contended that they paid duty upon notification by DGCEI, maintaining a belief that their software was not packaged and thus duty-exempt. They argued against invoking the extended period of limitation, citing lack of evidence of suppression to evade duty. Legal precedents were cited to support their stance.3. Invocation of extended period of limitation:The appellant argued that the duty paid prior to the show-cause notice issuance exempted them from penalty under Section 11AC. Precedents were cited to reinforce this argument, emphasizing that voluntary duty payment precludes penalty imposition.4. Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC:The Revenue contended that the appellant suppressed material facts and evaded duty, justifying the penalty. They cited a High Court decision supporting penalty imposition. However, the Tribunal found no evidence of intent to evade duty and ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the penalty.In conclusion, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the lack of evidence of suppression or intent to evade duty. They referenced legal precedents supporting the appellant's position on penalty exemption post-duty payment. The impugned order was deemed unsustainable, leading to the appeal's allowance with consequential reliefs.
TaxTMI 