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 →

Wind World (I) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (I) , Nhava Sheva

2015 (12) TMI 794 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Clearance of goods without payment of duty under Notification No. 85/2004-Cus. for basic customs duty, Notification No.6/2006 for CVD and Notification No.20/2006-Cus. for SED purpose - Held that:- Appellant was not eligible for the benefit of Notification 20/2006-Cus. but they availed of the benefit of the said notification in view of entry at serial No.1 of the table annexed to the said notification. We also note that out of 72 bills of entry, approximately 40% bills of entry were passed throug .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

In the result, the demand of duty within the normal period of limitation is confirmed while the demand beyond the normal period is set aside. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - APPEAL No. C/880/12-Mum - A/3254/2015-WZB/CB - Dated:- 1-10-2015 - Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) And Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Shri Paresh M. Joshi, Advocate : For the Petitioner Shri M.K. Sarangi, Joint Commissioner (AR) : For the Respondent ORDER Per: P.K. Jain Brief facts of the case are that the ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Cus. as para 3 of the said notification specifically prohibits that the benefit of the said notification is not available if the appellant is availing benefit of Notification 85/2004-Cus. dated 31.8.2004. During investigation, the appellant paid duty pertaining to the normal period of limitation along with interest. After investigation, a show cause notice was issued which was adjudicated by the impugned order wherein the demand has been confirmed for the extended period of limitation and impose .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aragraph 3 of the said notification, they had paid the duty for the normal period of limitation. They further submitted that they have never suppressed any fact or they have not given any misstatement or any other things so as to invoke the extended period of limitation under Section 28 of the Customs Act. It was further submitted that in the impugned order, the Commissioner has also not brought down any details which would justify the invocation of extended period of limitation. 3. Learned AR r .....

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 bill of entry is correct while the position is that they were not eligible to the benefit of Notification 20/2006-Cus. but still they claimed the benefit of the said notification. The learned AR also submitted the following case laws:- (i) CCE, Visakhapatnam vs. Mehta & Co. reported in 2011 (264) ELT 481 (SC); (ii) Concept Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. CCE, Aurangabad reported in 2015 (319) ELT 129 (T.-Mum.); (iii) Nagpur Transwell Power P. Ltd. vs. CCE, Nagpur reported in 2009 (243) ELT 459 ( .....

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