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 →

M/s. Chiripal Industries Limited, Shri Jyotiprasad Agrawal, M/s. Beekalyon Synthetics Pvt Limited, Shri Ranjit K Chowdhary And Others Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST., Ahmedabad And Others

2015 (5) TMI 289 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Demand u/s 11A - Extended period of limitation - Denial of the benefit of Sr. No. 6 of Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09.7.2004 - whether the benefits of exemption under Sr. No. 6 of the Table to Notification No. 30/2004-CE will be admissible to the appellant or not - Held that:- Facts involved in the present appeals and the facts involved in the appeals before this Bench while passing order dated 27.10.2014, are identical. Further definition of manufacturer and Factorygiven in other enactmen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that extended period for raising demands under Section 11(A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is invokable. It is observed from the case records that there was a general practice in the trade to claim the benefit of Sr. No. 6 of table annexed to Notification No. 30/2004-CE. Appellants can not be said to have any malafide intention if the same benefit was availed by them which was also being availed by similarly placed manufacturers. Under the above factual matrix extended period for raising dema .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

umar, Authorised Representative ORDER Per : Mr. H.K. Thakur; These appeals have been filed by the appellants with respect to OIA No. 01/COMMISSIONER/RAJU/AHD-I/2013 dated 05.02.2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-I and OIO No.VAP-EXCUS-000-COM-091-13-14 dated 31.03.2014, passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi. Under these orders, Adjudicating authorities have denied the benefit of Sr. No. 6 of Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09.7.2004, as amended, to the appellants .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vocate made the Bench go through the provisions contained in Sr. No. 6 of the Table of Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09.7.2004, as amended, and paragraph 9.3 to 9.8 of the order dated 27.10.2014 passed by this Bench in the case of Garden Silk Mills Limited. It was their case that the facts of the case in the relied upon case and the present appeals are the same. It was also argued by the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the appellants that demand beyond a period of one year are time .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in exemption Notification No. 30/2004-CE; read with the definition of the word person as given in Section 2(31) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; should mean a juristic person and should include all the units of a group of companies. Learned Special Counsel also brought to the notice of the Bench Sr. No. 114 of the table to Notification No. 06/2000-CE dated 01.3.2000 to argue that before Notification No. 30/2004-CE exemption was available to independent texturisers only and as per Para 23.2 of CBEC D .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

SGC & D TEU vs. SGC & IT Limited & Anr. [1986-1-LLJ 490 (SC)]. Learned Senior Counsel also argued that the demand is not time barred, becasue the appellants were not availing the benefit of Sr. No. 114 of the Notification 06/2000-CE dated 01.03.2000 as was the facts in the case of M/s. Garden Silk Mills and others. Hence, the Tribunals judgment in the case of Garden Silk Mills & Others, in so far it relates to time bar aspect is concerned, would not be applicable to the facts of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vision. That appellants also suppressed the fact they did not have separate PAN/ Bank Account/ Sales number etc. They wilfully defrauded the Government revenue by hiding the fact that no monetary transfer was taking place for supply of POY by the Fiber division to the Fabric division. They have wilfully suppressed the material fact by reason of fraud, collusion or contravention of the provisions of the act or rules made thereunder with the malafide intention to evade the Central Excise duty. 4. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uding plant and equipment) for manufacture of filament yarns of chapter 54. Explanation. - For the purposes of this explanation, manufacture of yarnsmeans manufacture of filaments of organic polymers produced by, - (a) polymerization of organic monomers, such as, polyamides, polyesters, polyurethanes, or polyvinyl derivatives; or (b) by chemical transformation of natural organic polymers (cellulose, casein, proteins or algae), such as viscose rayon, cellulose acetate, cupro or alginates. 4.1 On .....

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