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>High Court affirms duty liability decision, upholds shortfall of Rs. 8,26,116. Tribunal reduces penalty.</h1> The High Court at Calcutta upheld the authority's decision regarding duty liability, affirming a shortfall in duty payment of Rs. 8,26,116 for the period ... Production capacity based duty - Short payment Issues Involved:Calculation of duty liability and shortfall payment for the period from April 1998 to March 1999; Validity of the order passed by the authority and upheld by the Commissioner of Central Excise; Imposition of duty, interest, and penalty by the Additional Commissioner; Dismissal of the appeal by the Tribunal and reduction of penalty to Rs. 2 lacs; Determination of substantial question of law and the Tribunal's discretion in the matter.Analysis:The High Court at Calcutta addressed the issue of duty liability concerning a respondent who had paid a partial sum but was found to have a shortfall in duty payment amounting to Rs. 8,26,116 for the period from April 1998 to March 1999. The Commissioner of Central Excise upheld the authority's decision based on the appellant's duty liability determined as per the order fixing the annual capacity for the relevant year. The Additional Commissioner was within legal bounds to impose duty, interest, and penalty equivalent to the unpaid duty by the due date.The appeal was taken to the Tribunal, which concluded that there were no changes in the relevant parameters or requests for changes in the annual capacity fixation by the appellants. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal against the duty confirmed by the respondent but reduced the penalty to Rs. 2 lacs. The High Court found no substantial question of law in the matter, supporting the Tribunal's discretion in reaching its conclusion, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.In the final part of the judgment, all parties were directed to act on a signed copy of the order, and the provision for supplying an urgent xerox certified copy of the order to the parties upon compliance with formalities was made.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
