Case Law Details
Sanjeev Jindal Vs Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi)
The finding recorded in the order is that exemption under a notification that granted area based exemption was wrongly obtained by the Company and its Directors. It is for this reason that apart from denying the exemption claimed by the Company, penalty was also imposed upon the Directors.
Learned counsel for the appellant has placed the decision of the Tribunal dated September 27, 2016 by which ten appeals were allowed. The contention of the Department that a Company was not entitled to claim area based exemption was rejected. These appeals are numbered as Excise Appeals nos. 115, 116, 117 of 2007, Excise Appeal nos. 772-773 of 2012 and Excise Appeal nos. 58006-58010 of 2013.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since penalty was imposed upon the appellant merely for the reason that the Company was not entitled to claim the area based Exemption, the order deserves to be set aside in view of the earlier decision dated September 27, 2022 of the Tribunal.
Learned Authorized Representative appearing for the Department does not dispute this factual position.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
