Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2017 (8) TMI 586

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vocate - For the Respondent Per: SS GARG The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 09.10.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the respondent-assessee is not liable to pay the interest demanded and has allowed the appeal of the assessee. Briefly the facts of the present case are that M/s. Tee Gee Kay Ind....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s under Section 142 of the Customs Act 1962 read with Rule 9 and 10 of Customs (Attachment of Property of Defaulters for Recovery of Government Dues) Rules, 1995 and the notice of attachment was sent to sub Registrar, Angamaly. Shri Vinod Krishnan S/o Late T.G. Krishnan filed writ petition before the High Court of Kerala against revenue recovery proceedings initiated by the Department. The said wr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....est on 20.09.2012 before the Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin. The Commissioner of Central Excise Cochin after considering the petition of the party rejected the petition. Thereafter assessee again made a representation for waiver of interest and the same was also rejected. Thereafter the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order allowed the appea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... further submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala vide its judgment dated 30.03.2009. 4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the appellant defended the impugned order and further submitted that the respondent was a proprietary concern and the proprietor T.G. Krishnan died during the pendency of the proceedings and he has ....