Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

LUK INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI

2009 (12) TMI 802 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Refund in respect of defective goods received back - Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - E/345/2002 - 1974/2009 - Dated:- 16-12-2009 - Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram and Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, JJ. Shri J. Shankararaman, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri V.V. Hariharan, Jt. CDR, for the Respondent. ORDER Heard both sides. 2. Shri J. Shankararaman, learned counsel appearing for the appellants states that the impugned order has been passed pursuant .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lants have again paid duty. In respect of the remaining goods only minor repairs have been done and the same have been cleared without payment of duty as permitted under Rule 173H. They have filed necessary intimation under D3 and they were not asked to follow any procedures nor any additional documents were required to be maintained by them either under the Rules or under the instructions of the Commissioner. Accordingly, he prays that the entire duty due less the amount already paid by them sh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he defective parts and the new goods were manufactured. Hence, according to him, the duty demand in toto has to be sustained along with interest, fine and penalty levied. 4. After hearing both sides and perusal of case records, we find that the appellants are correct in stating that the adjudicating Commissioner has merely confirmed the demand earlier made by his predecessor and as regards fine and penalty he has not even bothered to specify the amount while passing the fresh order. There is no .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y item brought under Rule 173H was dismantled. 5. We also find that under Rule 173L where a refund is allowed in respect of defective goods received back, there is a stipulation for keeping such goods in a segregated manner with separate accounts. Such a strict stipulation is not there in respect of Rule 173H. No doubt Rule 173H authorises the Commissioner to subject an assessee to specific conditions in regard to goods received and repaired but there is no reference in the adjudicating Commissi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version