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

Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax and Customs Visakhapatnam-II Versus Rak Ceramics India Pvt Ltd

2015 (5) TMI 979 - CESTAT BANGALORE

Demand of differential duty - valuation - related partly - Penalty u/s 11AC - respondent did not pay correct Central Excise duty in respect of the supplies of sanitary ware products made to interconnected undertaking by the original authority - Held that:- Commissioner (A) in the impugned order has considered the provisions of law such as Section 4(3)(b), Rule 10 of Valuation Rules, the Circular issued by CBEC F.No.354/81/2000-TRU dated 30.6.2000 and the Circular No.643/34/2002-CX dated 1.7.2002 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

erson, when there were independent sales to other buyers, as per provisions of Rule 10(b), the sales to RAK, Mumbai has to be considered as a sale to an unrelated person. In the appeal memorandum as well as the submissions of learned AR, what is being stated is that this order is not correct and the decision of the appellate authority taking a view that valuation should be done on the Rule 10(b) is not correct and Rule 11 should have been applied - two parties to the transactions in this case ca .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

a, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. N. Anand, AR ORDER Per : B.S.V.MURTHY Differential duty of more than ₹ 20 lakhs has been demanded with interest and penalties under Section 11AC of Central Excise read under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules have been imposed on the ground that respondent did not pay correct Central Excise duty in respect of the supplies of sanitary ware products made to interconnected undertaking by the original authority. 2. On an appeals filed by the respondent, Commis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s to M/s. Ras Al Khaimah Ceramics India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (RAK, Mumbai) and that in the balance sheet of the respondent M/s. RAK, Mumbai has been shown as an associate company. The respondents submitted that respondent is a wholly owned subsidiary of M/s. RAK Ceramics, PSC, UAE which also hold 60% shareholding interest in RAK Mumbai. The Commissioner (A) in the impugned order has considered the provisions of law such as Section 4(3)(b), Rule 10 of Valuation Rules, the Circular issued by CBEC F.N .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

clusion that in the absence of any evidence to show that RAK Mumbai was a related person, when there were independent sales to other buyers, as per provisions of Rule 10(b), the sales to RAK, Mumbai has to be considered as a sale to an unrelated person. In the appeal memorandum as well as the submissions of learned AR, what is being stated is that this order is not correct and the decision of the appellate authority taking a view that valuation should be done on the Rule 10(b) is not correct and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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