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

2015 (8) TMI 298 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2015 (8) TMI 298 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - 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 r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ire production by the appellants to M/s ITL 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. Ravichandr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

entral Excise valuation purpose and demand was 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. They exercise control directly or indirectly 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 app .....

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