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 →

Commnr. Of customs & Central Excise Versus M/s. P.S.L. Ltd.

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 finding that the transaction was not at arm's length which was arrive .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 7305.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. T .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 given an opportunity to reply to the said show cause notice. In 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

ted 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 preferred by the respondent-assessee before the Customs, Excise and .....

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