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 →

M/s Godfrey Philips India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax, Ghaziabad

2015 (8) TMI 35 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Denial of abatement claim - whether appellant is required to pay duty for whole of the period or required to pay duty on pro rata basis after availing the abatement for closure period and consequently is entitled to claim the abatement of excess duty paid or not - Held that:- The denial of abatement is only on the ground that appellant is required to pay duty for whole of the month and thereafter to claim the abatement but that is not correct view in the light of the decision of this Tribunal in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n Masala containing Tobacco which is known as gutkha and paying duty under Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008. On 26.06.2012 the appellant filed Form 1 in terms of Rule 6 of the said rules for installation and sealing of packing machines w.e.f. 30.06.2012 that is midnight of 29.06.2012 and permanent discontinuation w.e.f. said date. The appellant filed the abatement claim on 04.09.2012 against the amount of duty paid by the appellants towards .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

27th, 28th and 29th June 2012. But the appellant paid the duty for four days. That is 4,80,000/- and sought abatement of the excess duty paid for 30.06.2012. The said claim was rejected on the premise that appellant was required to pay duty by 05.06.2012 which they failed to do so. Therefore, they are not entitled to claim abatement. He further submits that in the impugned order the Ld. Commissioner (A) has observed that duty was payable by the appellant on 05.07.2012 in this case and different .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l order no. 50223-50232/2015 dated 21.01.2015. 5. On the other hand Ld. AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions. 7. In this case the short issue emerges whether appellant is required to pay duty for whole of the period or required to pay duty on pro rata basis after availing the abatement for closure period and consequently is entitled to claim the abatement of excess duty paid or not. Similar issue came up before this Tribunal in the ca .....

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 Shree Flavours Pvt. Ltd. wherein the facts of the case are as under: "The Production started w.e.f. 08.09.2010 and closed on 17.09.2010. The appellant were required to discharge their duty liability within a period of five days from the date of production. But the appellant intimated to the department that they are going to close their factory from 17.09.2010 and they discharged their duty liability from the period 08.09.2010 to 16.09.2010 on 11.09.2012 itself." 8. Therefore, the iss .....

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