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 →

C.C.E., Jalandhar (Hq. at Chandigarh) Versus M/s International Engineers Limited

2015 (8) TMI 298 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Valuation - Related person - whether there was short payment of duty in the clearance of the goods by respondent to M/s ITL due to the reason both of them is having mutuality of interest and are related persons - Held that:- The correctness of demand for extended period is also to be decided. It is relevant to note that the allegation of Show Cause Notice says since the noticee also exclusively sold their entire production of excisable goods to their related M/s ITL, the assessable value of 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

is not enough to prove the mutuality of interest in the business of each other. Detailed examination and categorical finding of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of both limitation and on merits could not be faulted and we find no reason to interfere of the order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. E/1517/2006-EX (DB) - Final Order No.52330/2015 - Dated:- 23-7-2015 - Shri Ashok Jindal and Shri B. Ravichandran, JJ. For The Appellant : Shri Ranjan Khan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as confirmed against the respondent by the original authority on the ground that the transactions are to be treated as between related person resulting in under valuation. On appeal the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) set-aside the order. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) also held that extended period of limitation is not invokable in the present case. The Revenue is before us against this impugned order. The Revenue pleaded that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred by holding that percentage of share .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ly over the functioning of ITL. On the question of limitation the Revenue contended that the declaration filed by the respondent under Rule 173C did not disclose the full details as mutuality of interest could be established only on ascertaining share holding pattern. During the hearing the ld. AR relied on the Hon ble Supreme Court decision in the case of M/s I.T.E.C. Pvt. Ltd. reported as 2002 (145) E.L.T. 280 (S.C.). He reiterated the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue. None appeared for .....

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