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

2015 (11) TMI 964 - SUPREME COURT

2015 (11) TMI 964 - SUPREME COURT - 2015 (325) E.L.T. 460 (SC) - Demand of differential duty - Undervaluation of goods - Held that:- Revenue contended that the CESTAT has not discussed the facts of the present case appropriately and has accepted the version of the respondent-assessee blindly without even going into the documents, more particularly, the so called forward contract entered into between M/s. L&T and the assessee which was not even produced by the assessee. He submitted that the find .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r : Mr. Yashank Adhyaru, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava, Adv., Ms. B. Sunita Rao, Adv., Mr. Anurag, Adv., Mr. Pranay R., Adv. And Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. L. Badri Narain, Adv., Mr. M. P. Devanath, Adv., Mr. S. Vasudevan, Adv., Mr. Hemant Bajaj, Adv., Mr. Anandh K., Adv., Mr. Aditya Bhattacharya, Adv. And Ms. L. Charanya, Adv. ORDER The respondent herein is the manufacturer of Spirally Welded MS Pipes and Cement guniting of said pipes falling under Chapter Heading .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing the aforesaid product from Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) at a much higher prices, i.e., ₹ 18,992/- per metric of pipes rolled and it was the depressed value of ₹ 15,000/- which was shown in the invoices raised by M/s.L&T for supply of this product to the respondent. On that basis, Show Cause Notice dated 02.12.2004 was issued demanding differential duty of ₹ 40,95,850/- towards supply of the aforesaid HR coils purportedly at reduced cost. The respondent was gi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y paid thereupon. This contention of the respondent was not accepted by the Adjudicating Authority in his Order-in-Original. In the detailed order passed by the Additional Commissioner, while confirming the demand in the Show Cause Notice, he also recorded that the transaction between M/s. L&T and the assessee did not appear to be a transaction at arm's length and the price was suppressed. This order was confirmed in appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, in the further appeal pr .....

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