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

2015 (10) TMI 283 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2015 (10) TMI 283 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - Determination of annual capacity - Declaration filed under Rule 96ZP (4) - Held that:- It is clear from the perusal of records and as admitted in order-in-appeal dated 6.7.2000 the declaration filed by the appellant on 17.7.1998 is evidenced. Even in the impugned order of Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) he observed that declaration filed could not be traced by department and hence penalty cannot be imposed. It is also clear that the date declaration taken .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

were issued on the ground that declaration was not filed by the appellant under Rule 96ZP. Since, the declaration dated 17.7.1998 filed by the appellant is not disputed, the duty liability has to be accordingly arrived at - The demands of duty made without reference to such declaration will not survive. - duty liability for this period is to be as per the declaration - Appeal disposed of. - Appeal No. E/1413 AND 1468/2006-EX[DB] - Final Order No. 52276-52277/2015 - Dated:- 14-7-2015 - Shri Ashok .....

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 the matter to the Ld. Commissioner vide order dated 31/3/2000. The Ld. Commissioner again fixed the annual capacity of production vide order dated 27/3/2001. The appellant preferred appeal again and the Tribunal vide order dated 12/9/2001 again remanded the matter to the Ld. Commissioner. The department filed a reference petition before the Hon ble High Court of Rajasthan which was rejected. On de-novo proceedings, the ld. Commissioner fixed the annual capacity of production w.e.f. 30/7/1999. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to be determined under Rule 96 ZP (1), i.e., @ 400 per metric tonnes. The remaining two notices were based on annual capacity fixed by the Commissioner for applying @ 400 per metric tones. The demands were decided by the original authority and the same were confirmed with equal penalty. The appellant filed further appeal and the ld. Commissioner (Appeal) set aside the order of the original authority and remanded the matter back to de-novo consideration. The original authority again confirmed th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er on the demand pertaining to the period July, 1998 to December, 1998 and he also wrongly presumed that the date of filing declaration has been decided by the CESTAT as 1/1/1999. The appellant strongly contended that they have filed declaration dated 17/7/1998 under Rule 96ZP (4) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the Commissioner (appeal) erroneously was applying the date of 1/1/1999 which is for fixation of ACP. The department also has filed an appeal against the impugned order of the ld. Comm .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cise-Jaipur Vs. Alwar Processors Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2014 (308) ELT 720 (Tri-Del). On the other side, ld. AR contended that in view of the section 111 of The Finance (No.2) Act, 2009, there is no bar in continuing the proceedings notwithstanding the omission of Section 3(A). He also relied on the Hon ble Madras High Court s order in the case of Triveni Alloys Ltd. Vs. CESTAT, Chennai reported in 2014 (306) ELT 617 Mad. The Hon ble Madras High Court after detailed discussion and taking into con .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he merits of appeal of the appellant and the department. The appellant s is contention that the ld. Commissioner in the impugned order dated 18/01/2006 has not given any clear findings in respect of period from July, 1998 to December, 1998. He wrongly presumed that the date of filing declaration has been decided by the CESTAT as 1.1.1999. 7. It is clear from the perusal of records and as admitted in order-in-appeal dated 6.7.2000 the declaration filed by the appellant on 17.7.1998 is evidenced. .....

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