When the proceedings against the manufacturer stand concluded on payment of disputed amount of duty along with interest and penalty, no penalty would be imposable under Rule 26 of the Excise Rules on other persons like traders
Court :
CESTAT, Mumbai
Brief :
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai has relying upon the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur Vs. Abir Steel Rolling Mills [2013 (7) TMI 405 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], held that when the proceedings against the Respondent stand concluded on payment of disputed amount of duty along with interest and 25% of the duty as penalty, there would be no sense in continuing the proceedings for imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of the Excise Rules against the other Respondents like traders who had purchased the goods, transporters who had transported the goods cleared by the Respondent, the Directors/employees of the Respondent.
Citation :
Commissioner of Central Excise And Customs Aurangabad / Nashik – II Vs. Ambika Waste Management Pvt. Ltd., Ambadas Santosh Ngargoje, Harish kumar Harji vandas Gandhi, Shree Salasar Ispat Pvt. Ltd.
You have reached your daily limit of 2 Free Judgements
Subscribe to CCI PRO for unlimited access
Why Upgrade to CCI PRO?
- No Ads
- WhatsApp Community
- Daily E-Newsletter
- Unlimited Judgements Access
- Profile Visitors
- Link Social Profiles
- Featured Job Posts
- Pro Badge
- Expert GST Guidance
- Unlimited Forum Replies
- Download Content in PDF
Already a PRO member? Login here for an ad-free experience. 011-411-70713
Bimal Jain
Published in Excise
Views : 3098
Comments
Trending Online Classes
-
DT & Audit (Exam Oriented Fastrack Batch) - For May 26 Exams and onwards Full English
CA Bhanwar Borana & CA Shubham Keswani
CAclubindia
