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

2015 (9) TMI 249 - DELHI HIGH COURT

2015 (9) TMI 249 - DELHI HIGH COURT - 2015 (322) E.L.T. 616 (Del.) - SSI Exemption - Use of brand name - significance of evidence - Held that:- The impugned order has discussed in a great detail the inter-relationship between HM and its sister concerns which were also issued a show cause notice by the Department alleging that they had misutilised the exemption under the aforementioned notification and were involved in clandestine removal with a view to evading excise duty. The entire case 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

es figures pertained to mixer-grinders manufactured by HM.

In the absence of any evidence except the single document, which had no description of the goods, the third member to whom the matter was referred was justified in concluding the said document purporting to be a sales statement “cannot be treated as containing the figures of sale of Maharaja brand mixer-grinders manufactured and cleared by HM during 1987”. It was also rightly observed that while the document at best gives rise .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e For the Respondent : None ORDER 1. There is an inordinate delay of 577 days in filing the present appeal challenging the final order dated 14th February 2013 of the Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) in Appeal Nos. E/1976-1984/2005 & E/2549-2551/2005. The application for condonation of delay is in three paragraphs. The only reason which is offered for the extraordinary delay is contained in para 2 which reads as under: 2. That the certified copy of impugned CEST .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ar Nath Yadav (2014) 2 SCC 422 reiterated its earlier decision in Postmaster General v. Living Media India Limited (2012) 3 SCC 563 where it was observed as under: In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for process. The government departments are .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt has been heard extensively on merits as well. The facts of the case have been set out in detail in the order-in-original No. 72 of 2005 dated 14th March 2005 of the Commissioner, Central Excise as well as in the impugned final order of the third Member of the CESTAT to whom the matter was referred upon a difference of opinion between the Judicial Member (who held in favour of the Assessee) and the Technical Member (who held in favour of the Department). 6. The central question revolves around .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d misutilised the exemption under the aforementioned notification and were involved in clandestine removal with a view to evading excise duty. The entire case of the Department hinged upon a single document stated to have recovered from one of the marketing companies namely Technocrat Marketing P. Ltd. ( TMPL ). It is seen from the impugned order the third member that the said document did not mention the nature of the goods, i.e., whether the goods were mixer-grinder, electric press or toasters .....

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