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 →

The Commissioner of Central Excise Versus M/s. Tenneco RC India Private Ltd., The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal

2015 (7) TMI 342 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Valuation - Method of valuation - Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the 2nd respondent Tribunal was right in holding that revenue neutral situation as the reason for allowing the 1st respondent's appeal irrespective of the fact that the 1st respondent has wilfully suppressed the maintenance of dual accounting system and non-inclusion of profit marging in the assessable value of semi-finished goods cleared to their other unit - Hel that:- similar question has been considered by 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

Decided against Revenue. - C. M. A. No. 976 of 2009 - Dated:- 19-6-2015 - R. Sudhakar And K. B. K. Vasuki,JJ. For the Appellant : No appearance For the Respondent : Mr. V. Balasubramanian JUDGMENT ( Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. Sudhakar, J.) Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal in allowing the appeal filed by the assessee, the Revenue/appellant is before this Court by filing the present appeal. This Court, vide order dated 16.5.2009 admitted the appeal on the following substantia .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ling under Chapter Heading 8708 and 8714 of the CETA, 1985. They have two more manufacturing units at Pondicherry and Guargaon besides the unit at Alandur, Chennai. The Unit at Alandur cleared shock absorber elements on payment of duty and certain types of shock absorber elements in semi-finished condition to their sister Unit at Gurgaon on stock transfer basis which were ultimately sold to M/s. Maruthi Udyog Ltd. after adding items like spring, dust covers, etc. As the goods are in a semi-finis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

demanding differential duty. After following the due process of law, the adjudicating authority, vide the order in original, confirmed the duty amount of ₹ 3,31,115/- payable for the period 1996-97 under the erstwhile Rule 9(2) of CER 1944 read with sub section (1) of CEA 1944, imposed equal penalty under Section11 AC of CEA 1944 and appropriate interest under Section 11 AB of CEA, 1944 was also demanded. Aggrieved by that order, the assessee filed an appeal. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

counsel appearing for the parties that similar question has been considered by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Vadodara II, vs. Indeos Abs Ltd. reported in 2010 (254) E.L.T. 628 (Gujarat) and the issue raised was answered in favour of the assessee. It is not in dispute that, in an identical matter where a similar issue was raised, the Supreme Court, in the case of Nirlon Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, reported in 1015 (TIOL) 96 .....

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