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

2015 (3) TMI 1097 - CESTAT BANGALORE

2015 (3) TMI 1097 - CESTAT BANGALORE - TMI - Exemption from payment of duty vide Notification No.67/95-CE - manufacture of dumpers - captive consumption - exemption from payment of NCCD - Held that:- Manufacturing process remain the same and there is no deviation from the earlier manufacturing process. The goods are identical and as such it was not open to the Commissioner, in the present adjudication, to conclude differently than the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. He also clarifies that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d in the earlier proceedings is of no relevance. - after having gone through the earlier final order of the Tribunal, we agree with the learned advocate that it stands concluded that dumpers come into existence in one-go itself and there is no separate emergence of chassis in the process. - Stay granted. - E/Stay/22735/2014 in E/22403/2014-DB - Stay Order No: 20634 / 2015 - Dated:- 23-3-2015 - Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member And Shri B.S.V.Murthy, Technical Member For the Petitioner : Shri .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is that exemption from excise duty would not automatically attract exemption from payment of NCCD and as such, vide the present proceedings, the lower authorities have confirmed the demand of NCCD to the extent of around ₹ 32 crores. 2. The appellant has taken a categorically stand before the adjudicating authority that chassis do not come into existence independently during the course of manufacture of their final product and it is the dumpers only which emerge in one-go. It is seen that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

order No.1466/2009 dt. 26/10/2009 was further put to challenge by the Revenue before the Hon ble Supreme Court, who did not admit the appeal on account of delay and left the question of law open. 3. In the above background, it is the contention of the learned advocate that issue stands finally concluded and as such it was not open to the Revenue to confirm the demands again on the same set of facts and circumstances. On the other hand, the contention of the learned AR is that the appeal filed b .....

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