Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

UCAL FUEL SYSTEMS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHENNAI

2007 (4) TMI 509 - CESTAT, CHENNAI

Demand - Valuation - Penalty and interest - Imposition of - Admissibility of Refund - Held that: - no relief can be given with regard to the claim for refund. Even according to the appellants, the excess amount paid by them during the course of investigations was not an amount of duty. If that be so, nothing contained in Section 11B of the Act can be invoked by the assessee to claim refund of the said amount - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/565/2000 - 471/ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ls of cars. These carburettors had been manufactured with the technical assistance of M/s. Mikuni Corporation (Japan). The technical assistance fee in this behalf was paid to the said Corporation by the appellants after obtaining equivalent payment from their buyers (M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd.). The appellants, however, did not include the technical assistance fee, amortized to the extent of the quantity of goods supplied to M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. in the assessable value of such goods for the purpos .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e original authority made the appropriation as above, demanded interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,21,422/- under Section 11AC of the Act and also a separate penalty of Rs. 1 lakh under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In appeal, learned Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the Rule 173Q penalty to Rs. 10,000/- and maintained the rest of the order of the lower authority. 2. In the present appeal, the assessee seeks refund of the differenti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ds differential duty on 3256 pieces of carburettors supplied to M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. during the period of dispute. The notice did not propose to deny any refund. The assessee did not file any refund claim either. In the circumstances, we do not think that any refund claim is part of the subject-matter of this case. In this appeal, we are concerned with the question whether the demand of duty raised in the show-cause notice and the proposals raised therein for recovery of interest and penalty a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version