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 →

M/s. Singla Polymers Versus C.C.E. Delhi-III

Waiver of pre deposit - exemption under notification no. 214/86-CE - Held that:- Appellant manufacture rubber compound on job work basis for M/s Birla Tyres, Haridwar, out of the raw materials received by them and were availing the exemption under notification no. 214/86-CE. This exemption notification is available to the job worker on the basis of a declaration made by him that the goods manufactured by him and cleared to the principal manufacture would be used by the principal manufacturer in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ot have prima facie case in their favour. - Partial stay granted. - Excise Stay Application E/Stay/54624/2014 & Excise Appeal No. E/54076/2014-Ex[DB] - Stay Order No. 51477 /2015 - Dated:- 21-4-2015 - Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) And Mr. S. K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) None for the Appellants For the Respondent : Mr. R K Grover ORDER Per Rakesh Kumar (for the Bench): The appellant are manufacturer of rubber compound, cushion gum, vulcanizing cement etc., chargeable to central excise dut .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rla Tyres, however, were using the rubber compound for manufacture of the finished products which were being cleared at nil rate of duty under notification no. 50/03-CE. The point of dispute in this case is as to whether in these circumstances, the appellant would be liable to pay duty on the consignments of rubber compound cleared by them to M/s Birla Tyres. The Department was of the view that since M/s Birla Tyres were using the rubber compound in manufacture of the finished goods which were 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

mmissioner, this appeal has been filed along with stay application. 2. None appeared for the appellant. Since a notice had been issued to the appellant well in time, and in spite of this none representing the appellant has appeared and it is seen that on earlier occasions also, whenever this matter had been fixed for hearing, none representing the appellant had appeared, in accordance with Rule 21 of the CESTAT procedure Rules, the stay application is being decided ex-parte. 3. Heard Sh. RK Grov .....

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