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. Arbuda Alloys Pvt. Limited Versus Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Ahmedabad

2015 (10) TMI 1688 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Duty Demand under Rule 96ZP - Assessee contends that adjudication proceedings was completed in 2006, long after omission of Section 3A read with Rule 96ZP in 2001 - Held that:- adjudication order was passed in 2006, long after the omission of Section 3A and the Tribunal following the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Krishna Processors vs. UOI - [2012 (11) TMI 954 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has taken a view that the said proceedings would not sustain. In view of the decision of the Tr .....

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 engaged in the manufacture of Re-rolled products of non-alloy steels classifiable under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. From 01.09.1997, they were working under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and discharging duty under Rule 96ZP(3) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rule 1944. 2. Four show cause notices were issued during the period from 1998 to 2000 proposing demand of duty under Rule 96ZP of the said Rules 1944 alongwith interest and to impose pena .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cating authority confirmed the demand of duty alongwith interest and imposed penalty. By the impugned order dated 17.07.2006, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. 3. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the main contention of the learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the appellants that impugned orders cannot be sustained on the ground the adjudication proceedings was completed in 2006, long after omission of Section 3A read wi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

adjudication order and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for de-novo adjudication. In the said order, the duty demand for the period 16.12.1998 to 27.02.1999 was set-aside and the demand for the period from 28.02.1999 onwards, was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for de-novo adjudication. In de-novo adjudication, the Assistant Commissioner by order dated 10.02.2004 confirmed the demand of duty for the period 28.02.1999 to 05.11.1999 under Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) of the erstwhile .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ubsequent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kolhapur Cane Sugar Works Ltd. reported in 2000 (119) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) concluded that no proceedings could have been initiated under the omitted Rule 96ZQ after omission of Section 3A w.e.f. 11-5-2001 in absence of any saving clause. The Court further held that all proceedings which were pending as on 11-5-2001, even if initiated prior to omission of Rule 96ZQ would thereafter automatically lapse and no order could be passed if they were not c .....

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