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. Venkateshwar Strips (P) Ltd. Versus C.C.E. Raipur

Manufacture and captive consumption of HR Strips - demand of duty denying the exemption under notification 67/95 dated 16.03.1995 - Imposition of penalty and interest - Held that:- Where duty is demanded the appellant were required to pay a sum of ₹ 6,67,400/- whereas they are entitled for deemed credit during the period is ₹ 7,09,817/-. Therefore, the appellant have entitled more credit than the payment of duty. Moreover, appellant has paid excess duty of ₹ 17,640/- during the .....

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 - Decided in favour of favour of assessee. - Appeal No. E/3266/2006-EX(DB) - FINAL ORDER NO. 52240/2015-EX(DB) - Dated:- 10-7-2015 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) and Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical), JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri S. Khanna, Proxy Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Pramod Kumar, DR ORDER Per Ashok Jindal: The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order demanding interest and imposition of penalty on them. 2. The facts of the case are that the show cause n .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Strip which were cleared by them for captively consumption and claim under notification no. 67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 to their tube mill section where those tubes were used for manufacture of tubes. The Revenue is of the view that appellant is not entitled for exemption under notification 67/95 dated 16.03.1995 as amended by notification no. 59/97-CE. Therefore, as appellant has not paid Central Excise duty on HR Strips. Therefore, they are liable to pay duty on HR Strips and duty on MS tubes a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e of HR Strips is entitled for deemed credit to the manufacturer of tubes. Therefore, duty was sought to be re-determined and matter was remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority. In remand proceedings again duty paid by the appellant was adjusted wherein the appellant paid excess duty of ₹ 17,640/- but demand of interest was confirmed and penalty equivalent to duty was also imposed. Aggrieved from the said order of demanding interest and imposition of penalty, the appellant is before us .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tled to take deemed credit of ₹ 7,09,817/- and they have paid a duty to ₹ 6,06,249/-. Therefore, they have paid the excess duty of ₹ 17,640/-. When these facts are on record the demand of interest and imposition of penalty is not sustainable. To support his contention he relied on the decision of Hans Steel Rolling Mills Vs. CCE Chandigarh-2011 (265) ELT 321 (SC) to say that time limit prescribed under section 11A of the Act is not applicable. He also submits that in the case o .....

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
  ↓     Update Alerts     ↓  


|| 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