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>Contract Breach Confirmed: Defendant Liable for Failing to Meet Agreed Terms, Plaintiff Wins Compensatory Damages</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., PUNE Versus POLSON LIMITED</h3> The SC upheld the lower court's ruling, finding that the defendant's actions constituted a breach of contractual obligations. The court determined that ... - The CESTAT Mumbai addressed an appeal challenging Order-in-Appeal No. PII/26/2006, which confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 15,000 but set aside penalties imposed on the respondent for improper Cenvat credit. The respondent had availed Cenvat credit on original invoices and sugar cess paid under the Sugar Cess Act, 1982. Revenue contended that credit on original invoices was improper and that credit on sugar cess was ineligible, seeking mandatory penalty under Section 11AC once the demand was confirmed.The Tribunal noted the respondent reversed the sugar cess credit before issuance of the show cause notice. Citing the Bombay High Court decision in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Gaurav Mercantiles Ltd. [2005 (190) E.L.T. 11 (Bom.)], the Tribunal held that erroneous credit due to misinterpretation, especially when reversed timely, does not warrant mandatory penalty under Section 11AC. The Tribunal affirmed the appellate order setting aside penalties and rejected the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that penalty under Section 11AC is not automatic where the credit is reversed prior to notice and the error is not deliberate.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
