Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post a Query
Post a New Query
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Discussion Forum

Back

All Issues

WhatsAppJoin Channel
Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
OR
Search by Issue ID:
NOTE: If you have inputs in both the fields, then results will be shown for issueId first.
Issue ID: 107285
Like 0Bookmark

Imposition of penalty both under section 11A and 11AC.

Date 05 Sep 2014
Replies3 Replies
Views 5006 Views
Asked by
Double jeopardy: the same excise act should not trigger both audit-based and fraud-based penalties concurrently.
Whether both penalties may be imposed turns on distinct statutory triggers: the audit-discovered short-levy penalty under Section 11A(5), applicable when particulars exist in the assessee's records, and the fraud-based penalty under Section 11AC, applicable when duty is evaded by fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts or intentional contravention. The same factual act should not attract both penalties for the identical offence; constitutional protection against double jeopardy operates as a limiting principle. (AI Summary)

Whether both the penalty under section 11A(5) and 11AC can be imposed on a manufacture on account of fraudulent availment of cenvat credit during the year 2011-12.

3 answers
Sort by

Old Query - New Comments are closed.

Hide

No Replies are present.

Old Query - New Comments are closed.

Hide
Recent Issues