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 →

M/s. Sri Kaliswari Fireworks Pvt Ltd, A.P. Selvarajan Versus The Customs Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, The Commissioner of Central Excise

Dismissal of appeal - non grant of adjournment by the tribunal - principle of natural justice - levy of interest on differential duty due to Inclusion of charity amount known as 'Mahamai' collected at the rate of 1.3% in the value - Held that:- the question as to whether there is any liability to pay interest for the period of delayed payment of duty, has not been discussed in detail, more particularly, with regard to the facts in issue - order of the tribunal set aside on the ground of violatio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Heading No.3604.10 of First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, raising the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether the Final Orders dated 24.01.2014 passed by the learned first respondent Tribunal suffers from the vice of principles of natural justice? (ii) Whether the learned first respondent Tribunal erred in deciding the appeals by a learned Single Member Bench while some of the appeals on the same issue are listed to be heard before the learned Division Bench?&qu .....

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 went in appeal to the Tribunal and the CESTAT, by final orders in Nos.586-590 of 2011, dated 10.05.2011, allowed the Department's Appeals on inclusion of 'Mahamai' charges. The Tribunal directed the authorities to quantify the duty based on 'cum duty price' concept. 4. The order of CESTAT was accepted by the Department and consequent to that, 45 show cause notices were issued and duty was paid even before the show cause notices were adjudicated, resulting only in levy of i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on behalf of the appellant and it is the contention of the appellant that they sent a request for adjournment was made on 18.10.2013 itself and it was sent through speed post, dated 19.10.2013, to CESTAT, making a request for adjournment to post the appeals during the third week of January 2014, which proof has been filed before this Court. 6. It transpires that there was no intimation about the next date of hearing and therefore, the appellant did not know about the date of hearing of the appe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ncludible in the assessable value and therefore, there was no reason as to why the Tribunal should have dismissed only 12 appeals. 8. Furthermore, opportunity was denied despite a specific request made vide letter, dated 18.10.2013 and despatched on 19.10.2013, for which proof has been filed. It is the further plea of the appellant that the entire issue should have been considered as one single component in all the 45 appeals as prejudice will be caused to the appellant by virtue of the impugned .....

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