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 Customs and Central Excise Versus M/s Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd.

2015 (8) TMI 1128 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Duty demand u/s 11A - Suppression of facts - Misdeclaration of goods - Whether the CESTAT, was right in rejecting extended period of demand under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 and in not restoring levy of mandatory penalty under Section 11AC, levy of interest under Section 11AB of the Act and penalties under Rules 173Q and 226 of Central Excise Rules, 1944, holding that no mis- declaration or suppression was made by the respondent - Held that:- Even before the Tribunal, there was no ma .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of limitation to the facts of the case. - No reason to interfere as it is purely a finding of fact recorded by the authorities on appreciation of the material on record - Decided against Revenue. - C.E.A. No. 8 of 2006 - Dated:- 8-7-2015 - G. Chandraiah And Challa Kodanda Ram, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Gopala Krishna Gokhale For the Respondent : Mr.Karan Talwar, advocate (representing Mr. Lakshmi Kumaran & Sridharan, counsels for the respondent) ORDER (Per Honble Sri Justice Challa Kodanda .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

173Q and 226 of Central Excise Rules, 1944, holding that no mis- declaration or suppression was made by the respondent. 2. Heard Mr. Gopala Krishna Gokhale, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Karan Talwar, counsel representing Mr. Lakshmi Kumaran & Sridharan, counsel for the respondent. 3. Having heard both the counsel and having perused the record, we find that there is ample justification for the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that there was no suppression of turnover, much les .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ials for the purpose of concession, it does not matter how the gunny bag is described in documents. The amendments to Central Excise Notification No.48/91 dt.25.7.94 vide 30/93 shows unambiguously that Jute Waste shall include old gunny bag waste. Therefore, it still remains correct that gunny bag waste can be described as waste of jute products and in extension would be includible in Jute Waste. Therefore, there is not misdeclaration in raw material account. In addition, this description by its .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t. Rule 9(1) regarding discharge of appropriate duty and 173F regarding determination of correct rate of duty pertaining to clearances of goods out of gunny bag pulp do not stand on basis of above evidence of discussions. 40. The facts of usage of different raw materials, accounting of duty payable has been obtained from assessees records. Except the usage word jute waste Vs. Gunny Waste no other discrepancy has been brought on record. Hence the charge of violation of Rule 226 also does not stan .....

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