Loading...

⚠ โœ•
❮ Top
☎ Help
Draft upto 3 replies to a
tax notice โ€” FREE ๐ŸŽ‰ โœ•

150 credits ยท 30 days

โ€ข Basic Search โ†’ 1 Credit
โ€ข Advanced Search โ†’ 3 Credits
โ€ข Drafter โ†’ 20 to extract + 25 per issue
(โ‰ˆ upto 2-3 drafts on us)

Already used our earlier 20-Credit Demo?
You are still eligible for this new 150-Credit Demo.

Activate your FREE Demo โ†’
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedbackโœ•

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 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2008 (8) TMI 741

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....espondent. [Order per : P. Karthikeyan, Member (T)]. - This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. The original authority had demanded an amount of Rs. 5, 94,566/- due on RCC Poles manufactured and cleared by the respondents M/s. M.S. Samuel & Sons during the period 1998-99 to M/s. TNEB. The original authority had imposed equal amount of penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... It is argued that equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 11AC by the original authority is correct. As the respondents had failed to register themselves, when they had crossed the value of clearance of Rs. 50 lakhs, setting aside penalty by observing that there was no wilful suppression of facts was not in order. The respondents are not represented. 3. On a careful consideration of....