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

2017 (6) TMI 1135

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for Appellant Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Joint Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar The present appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No.10/Commr/LKO/2006-07 dated 23/03/2007 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant were issued with a show cause notice F.No.161/INT/DGCEI/HQ/2003 dated 20.10.2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....irmed the demand of Central Excise duty of Rs. 7,17,16,580/- against M/s Shyam Traders, Lucknow. Further, in addition to various other orders, original authority imposed penalty of Rs. 75 lakhs on appellant under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. On page No.93 of the said Order-in-Original dated 23.03.2007 the learned original authority has held that the show cause notice proposed imposition ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ant have contended that in so for as the said Order-in-Original is concern that the original authority imposed penalty under Rule 26 on appellant, the same is not sustainable because the order has traveled beyond the show cause notice. 5. The learned A.R. for Revenue has supported the impugned Order-in-Original. 6. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that the imposition of penal....