Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Huller Screen Manufacturing Co. Versus CCE-KOL-I

2015 (10) TMI 41 - CESTAT KOLKATA

Waiver of pre deposit - Classification of goods - Held that:- First appellate authority has not decided the case on merits regarding classification of the goods manufactured and exported by the appellant on payment of duty. Department also accepted the payment of duty and also sanctioned rebate claims on the goods which now are proposed to be chargeable to NIL rate of duty. In the interest of justice Order dated 18.12.2009, passed by the first appellate authority is set aside and the case is rem .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

K.Thakur. This stay application and appeal have been filed by the appellant against Order-in-Appeal No.50/Kol-I/09 dated 18.12.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I) of Central Excise, Kolkata as first appellate authority. 2. Shri Arijit Chakraborty (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that Commissioner(Appeals) vide Stay Order No.284/KOL-I/08 dated 13.11.2008 directed the appellant to predeposit 50% of the entire demand confirmed and penalty imposed. That appellant vide l .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ide Order dated 31.01.2013 [2015 (315) ELT 544(Cal)] remanded the case to this Tribunal for considering the merits of the case also while deciding the stay application. 2.1 Learned Advocate further argued that on merits appellant has a strong case. That appellant was wrongly classifying their product Screens, Stuffs, Roller under Tariff heading No.84369900. That vide a letter dated 23.12.2009 appellant submitted that their products are classifiable under Tariff heading 73063090 chargeable to 16% .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nputs in dutiable and excisable finished goods. That appellant has correctly classified the goods under 73063090 which are dutiable and provision of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are not applicable. 3. Shri S.K. Naskar, AC(AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that correct classification of the Screens manufactured by the appellant is under Tariff Heading 84369900 chargeable to Nil rate of duty and strongly argued that duty and penalties have been correctly imposed and first .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

wever extended by four weeks from the date of receipt of the said order. 4. The decision of the learned Tribunal holding that the modification of the order was not permissible in law, is misconceived. An order directing pre-deposit is an interim order and is liable to be varied and/or modified. Rule 41 of the Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 enables the learned Tribunal to make such orders or to give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to give .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version