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 →

CCE, Ludhiana Versus M/s Vardhman Spinning & General Mills Ltd.

2015 (3) TMI 1093 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Duty demand - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Penalty u/s 11AC - Held that:- Commissioner by the impugned order by invoking extended period under proviso to Section 11A (1) has confirmed the duty demand of ₹ 11,27,06,058/- against .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Section 11AC was the difference between the duty demand and the Cenvat credit admissible. It is seen that the appeal filed by the respondent against this order of the Commissioner has been allowed by the Tribunal vide judgment mentioned above and 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

ial) For the Petitioner : Shri M.S. Negi, Authorized Representative (DR) For the Respondent : Shri Rupendra Singh, Advocate ORDER Per. Rakesh Kumar :- The Commissioner vide order-in-original No. 15/Ldh/2005 dated 08/04/05 had confirmed the duty deman .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

esides this, had imposed penalty of ₹ 2,59,15,371/- on the respondent under Section 11AC. In the same order the Commissioner had also directed that the respondent would be eligible for Cenvat credit of ₹ 8,67,90,687/-. Though in the show .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sioner, both the respondent as well as the Revenue filed appeals. The respondent filed appeal challenging the confirmation of the duty demand alongwith interest and imposition of penalty. The Revenue filed appeal on the grounds that - (a) the Cenvat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e Cenvat credit admissible ; and (c) Commissioners decision not to impose penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on Shri Deepinder Singh, Authorised Signatory of the respondent company is also not correct and some penalty should h .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

respect of the appeal against the same order of the Commissioner filed by the respondent, the Tribunal vide final order No. 441/2007-EX dated 24/07/07 reported in 2008 (223) E.L.T. 445 (Tri. - Del.) has set aside the entire duty demand of ₹ 11, .....

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 perused the records. 6. The Commissioner by the impugned order by invoking extended period under proviso to Section 11A (1) has confirmed the duty demand of ₹ 11,27,06,058/- against the respondent alongwith interest on it under Section 11AB a .....

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
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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