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

M/s. TML Drivelines Limited (Formerly M/s. H.V. Transmission Ltd.) Versus Commr. of Central Excise, JSR

2015 (10) TMI 889 - CESTAT KOLKATA

Waiver of pre deposit - Determination of assessable value - Revenue contends that assessable value of gear box ought to be determined under Sec. 4(1)(b) of CEA,1944 read with Rule 10 (a) and with Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 - Held that:- Appellant has placed the opinion of M/s. Mani & Co., the Cost Accountant, in their support. It is also contended that on reference of the said opinion to A.D. (Cost), by the Department, more or less the said opinion was accepted. Counterin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the applicant could able to make out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of dues adjudged. Accordingly, all dues adjudged is waived and its recovery stayed during the pendency of the appeal. - Stay granted. - Stay Application No. 157/2011 In Excise Appeal No. E-101/2011 - Order No : SO/75918/15 - Dated:- 9-9-2015 - Dr. D.M. Misra, Judicial Member and Shri H.K. Thakur, Technical Member For the Petitioner : Sri Ravi Raghavan & Miss S. Chatterjee, Advocate For the Respondent : Sri S. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Ltd as per Sec.4(1)(a) of CEA,1944. 4. On the basis of audit objection, the department alleged that the clearances to M/s. Tata Motors by the applicant are not on principal to principal basis and hence the assessable value of gear box ought to be determined under Sec. 4(1)(b) of CEA,1944 read with Rule 10 (a) and with Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. Accordingly, the cost of the gear box had been arrived at by the Department and differential duty was demanded & confirmed. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

later also accepted by the Assistant Director (Cost) as correct when referred by the department for his opinoion. It is the grievance of the appellant that even though the methodology adopted was in accordance with CAS-4 and accepted by the A.D. (Cost) as correct, the same was not considered by the adjudicating authority and the demand was confirmed. 5. Ld. A.R. for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Ld. Adjudicating authority. He submits that the contention of the appellant are not supp .....

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
 


|| 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