New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (4) TMI 605 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

2015 (4) TMI 605 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT - 2015 (321) E.L.T. 632 (P & H) - Manufacture - levy of duty on Zinc-Dross/Zinc-Ash generated in the Factory - Validity of Tribunal's order - Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - whether a bare Provisions of Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is enough to raise & confirm the Demand of Duty on such products - Held that:- The appellant contended that in view of its having deposited the entire demand, it was entitled to a stay. The .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

afresh . - CEA No. 55/2014 - Dated:- 10-4-2015 - S. J. Vazifdar, ACJ And G. S. Sandhawalia,JJ. For the Appellants : Mr Naveen Mullick, Adv. for Mr Parth Mullick Adv. For the Respondent : Mr D. D Sharma, Adv. for No. 2 ORDER S. J. Vazifdar, A.C.J. (Oral) This is an appeal against the orders of the CESTAT dated 15.02.2013 and an order dated 21.02.2014. The following questions of law have been raised in the appeal:- "i) Whether the Zinc-Dross/Zinc-Ash generated in the Factory has even been he .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944? iii) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal, without there being any Notice for Final-Disposal, could pass the Final-Order on the date only fixed for disposing of the Stay - Application and whether the Final Order passed is in violation of the principles of natural justice? iv) Whether the Demand of Duty on Zinc- Dross/Zinc-Ash confirmed by the Hon'ble Tribunal is Legal, Correct and Proper? For the purpose of this appeal, we, however, raise the following subst .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

efore the Tribunal. The appellant contended that in view of its having deposited the entire demand, it was entitled to a stay. The matter appeared on the Board on the first day itself for considering the application for stay regarding penalty. It was not necessary to consider any application for stay regarding the demand as the amount demanded had already been deposited. However, the CESTAT, by the impugned order dated 15.02.2013, disposed of the appeal itself. The CESTAT could not have disposed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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