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 Modifies Order: Reduces Company Penalty to 25% and Sets Aside Director's Penalty, No Interest on Excise Duty.</h1> <h3>M/s. HP Ispat Pvt Ltd. Versus Commr. of CGST & Central Excise, Bolpur And Mahesh Kumar Kandoi Versus Commr. of CGST & Central Excise, Bolpur</h3> M/s. HP Ispat Pvt Ltd. Versus Commr. of CGST & Central Excise, Bolpur And Mahesh Kumar Kandoi Versus Commr. of CGST & Central Excise, Bolpur - TMI Issues involved: Stock shortage, Excise Duty, Interest, Penalty on Company and DirectorStock shortage and Excise Duty: The Department officials found a shortage of M. S. Billets and TMT Bars during physical stock verification at the factory premises. The value of the shortage was determined, and Excise Duty of Rs. 3,46,438/- was calculated. The Authorized Signatory agreed with the shortage and duty amount. The Appellants paid the duty amount, but a Show Cause Notice was issued for interest and penalty.Interest on Excise Duty: The Appellant argued that no interest should be demanded as the goods were not alleged to have been cleared before stock taking. The Tribunal agreed, stating that since the duty was paid promptly after the stock verification, no interest was payable. The demand for interest was set aside.Penalty on Company: The Adjudicating Authority imposed a penalty on the Company, which the Appellants were willing to pay at 25%. However, they were unable to do so due to the requirement to pay interest. The Tribunal allowed the Company to pay the revised penalty amount by a specified date, reducing it to 25% of the original penalty.Penalty on Director: The Appellant's Director was penalized for the stock shortages. The Tribunal found no specific case against the Director and noted that day-to-day activities were managed by an employee. The penalty on the Director was set aside, as there was no justification for holding him responsible for the shortages.Conclusion: The Tribunal partially allowed the Appeals in favor of the Appellant Company and fully in favor of the Director. The Order-In-Original was modified to reflect the decisions regarding interest, penalty on the Company, and penalty on the Director.
TaxTMI 