Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s JSW Steel Ltd. Versus Commnr. of Central Excise

2015 (11) TMI 1236 - SUPREME COURT

Duty demand - non removal of goods after expiry of warehousing period - Held that:- Case is covered by the judgment of this Court in 'Kesoram Rayon v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta' [1996 (8) TMI 109 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. - Commissioner directed to recalculate the interest. He may complete this exercise within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and indicate the exact amount of interest which is payable by the appellant. Further, the Commissioner would be entitled .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, Mr. Gaurav Juneja, Adv., Mr. Shikhar Srivastava, Adv., Mr. K. Ajit Singh, Adv. & M/s. Khaitan & Co. For the Respondent : Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Shankar Divate, Adv., Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv., Ms. Sunita Rani Singh, Adv. And Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Adv. ORDER The appellant-assessee herein entered into a contract dated 10.04.1996 with one M/s. China Iron & Steel Industry and Trade Group Corporation, Beijing, China, for supply and installation of Air Separation Plant (ASP). .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

3.2002. During this period, the goods which were warehoused were removed substantially but still some goods remained to be cleared. As these goods were not cleared by the period permitted, the remaining goods were treated as unauthorised goods warehoused. It resulted in Show Cause Notice dated 30.03.2005 whereby a demand of duty of ₹ 3,07,65,945/- was raised in respect of uncleared goods which lay in the warehouse beyond the extended period by invoking the provisions of Section 72 of the 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

he appeal vide orders dated 05.04.2007. Mr. S. K. Bagaria, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, fairly conceded that the case is covered by the judgment of this Court in 'Kesoram Rayon v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta' [1996 (5) SCC 576]. However, he endeavored to argue that the said judgment does not depict the law correctly and, therefore, made a fervent plea to refer the matter to larger Bench. After hearing learned senior counsel for both the sides on this aspect, we .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version