Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Commissioner of Central Excise Commissioner ate Vs M/s Jai Shree Agro Industries Ltd. (Punjab & Haryana High Court)
Appeal Number : CEA No. 139 of 2006
Date of Judgement/Order : 13/05/2010
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Whether penalty U/s. 11AC of Central Excise Act is mandatory and equal to the duty demanded or the authority has discretion to impose lesser penalty?

We do not find that on all the four counts, demand was raised on the ground of clearance of goods with intent to evade payment of duty. Demand relating to third count and relating to samples was clearly demand on account of legal issues so it cannot be held that there was intention to evade payment of duty. So penalty in respect of these two counts is not sustainable.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

CEA No. 139 of 2006

Commissioner of Central Excise Commissioner ate, Delhi- V, Rohtak – Appellant

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031