M\/s. SILVER CLOUD ESTATES (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, COIMBATORE
Central Excise
2019 (2) TMI 204 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 29-11-2018
E\/41736\/2018 – FINAL ORDER NO. 42981\/2018
Central Excise
Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S, Judicial Member
\nFor the Appellant: Ms. Kanthi Visalakshi, Adv.
\nFor the Respondent: Ms. T. Usha Devi, DC (AR)
\nORDER
\nThe brief facts are that the appellants are manufacturers of Black Tea and they were issued show-cause notice alleging non-payment of Cess amounting to Rs. 3,72,736\/- for the period Jun.'13 to Dec. '13. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed penalty of Rs. 1,86,368\/- und<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n g authority has not stated any reasons for imposing penalty except for the fact it is stated that the appellants have violated the provisions of law and have filed returns belatedly. It is also argued by her that the appellants were facing some financial problems as the amount were not received by them from their customers and, therefore, the delay to pay upto the Cess part of the demand. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. SILVER CLOUD ESTATES (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, COIMBATORECentral Excise2019 (2) TMI 204 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 29-11-2018E\/41736\/2018 – FINAL ORDER NO. 42981\/2018Central ExciseSmt. Sulekha Beevi C.S, Judicial Member For the Appellant: Ms. Kanthi Visalakshi, Adv. For the Respondent: Ms. T. Usha Devi, DC (AR) ORDER … Continue reading “M\/s. SILVER CLOUD ESTATES (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, COIMBATORE”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16583","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16583","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=16583"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16583\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16583"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16583"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16583"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. The learned Authorised Representative Ms. T. Usha Devi supported the findings in the impugned order. She submitted that the appellants would not have remitted the Cess but for the interference from the department. This itself leads to willful suppression of facts and, therefore, the penalty imposed is legal and proper.
\n4. Heard both sides.
\n5. The app<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n