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 Bhagwati Autocast Ltd. Versus Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Ahmedabad-II

2015 (11) TMI 514 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Valuation - Appellant collected the cost of the moulds and dyes from their customers and it was not included in the assessable value - Held that:- Commissioner (Appeals) observed that balance sheet for the year 2004-05 could not have been available on 25.07.2005 which was prepared in October/November after closure of financial year. We do not find any material on record that the Department had initiated any enquiry for getting the figures despite their knowledge of non-inclusion of the value in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nal. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No.E/1181,1182/2007-DB - Order No.A/11141-11142/2015 - Dated:- 30-7-2015 - Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) And Mr. P.M. Saleem, Member (Technical) For the Petitioner : Shri Kuntal Parikh, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri Alok Srivastava, Authorised Representative ORDER Per: P.K. Das These appeals are arising out of common order and therefore, both are taken up together for disposal. 2. The Appellants were engaged in 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

demanding duty alongwith interest and to impose penalty. 3. Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty of ₹ 2,34,934.00 and ₹ 1,86,739.00 alongwith interest and imposed penalties. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Adjudication order. 4. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the main contention of the learned Advocate on behalf of the Appellant is that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked as Show Cause Notice dt.18.09.2006 is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tation cannot be invoked. He relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Nizam Sugar Factory Vs CCE 2006 (197) ELT 465 (SC). 5. On the other hand, the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submits that the demand was raised on the basis of balance sheet. It is submitted that the balance sheet was prepared in 2006 and therefore, show cause notice was issued in September 2006. It is further submitted that the Appellant has not supplied the figure to the Department. .....

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