1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Tribunal sets aside penalty under Customs Act due to absence of duty demand confirmation</h1> The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the Director of M/s. Andslite Pvt. Ltd. under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, as the duty demand ... Penalty u/s 112 (b) of the CA 1962 on Director - non-fulfillment of the conditions of N/N. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 - Held that: - Since the adjudged demand confirmed against M/s. Andslite Pvt. Ltd. has already been set aside, there is no justification for imposition of penalty on the present appellant, who is the Director of the said company - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues: Imposition of penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfillment of conditions of notification no. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012.Analysis:1. The case involved the imposition of a penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 for non-fulfillment of the conditions of notification no. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012. The Original Authority had proceeded against M/s. Andslite Pvt. Ltd. and its Director for confirmation of duty demand and imposition of penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order confirming the duty demand in favor of M/s. Andslite Pvt. Ltd. However, the penalty imposed on the Director was upheld in the impugned order dated 17.02.2014.2. The Tribunal considered the appeal and noted that the adjudication order confirming the duty demand against M/s. Andslite Pvt. Ltd. had been set aside by the Commissioner and upheld by the Tribunal in a previous Final Order. Since the demand against the company had been set aside, the Tribunal found no justification for imposing a penalty on the Director of the company.3. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal concluded that there was no merit in the impugned order. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, the Director of M/s. Andslite Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of justification for imposing a penalty when the demand against the company had already been set aside.4. In the final judgment, the Tribunal pronounced the decision in the open court, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant, the Director of M/s. Andslite Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of merit in upholding the penalty when the demand against the company had been set aside.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
