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 →

Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-I Versus M/s Continental Engine Ltd (Foundry Division) And Vica-Versa

2016 (1) TMI 62 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Duty demand - shortages in inputs received and goods which are part of work in progress - Held that:- They are contesting the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in paras 6.1 and 7 of the impugned order. We find that apart from arriving at contradictory findings regarding work-in-progress, the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider the explanation offered by the assessee about the accounting process and clearance of all production to 100% EOU. No cross verification on receiptient's end or .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and of duty on castings without any reasoning. His finding that cenvat credit available on ingots is to be reversed is without any basis and, in any case, the final confirmation of demand of duty on castings using such finding is totally misplaced. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Excise Appeal No. E/2850/2006-EX(DB), Excise Appeal No. E/3880/2006-EX(DB) - Dated:- 23-10-2015 - Sulekha Beevi CS, Member (J) And B. Ravichandran, Member (T) For the Appellant : Shri Govind Dixit, DR For the Respond .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of credit on tubes as inputs instead of capital goods were also noticed. Proceedings initiated resulted in the order dated 19.11.2005 of Joint Commissioner. On appeal, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order confirmed part of the demand and set aside the penalty imposed on the assessee. 3. The assessee is in appeal contesting the demand as upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Revenue is in appeal against dropping of penalty. 4. Ld. Counsel for appellant - assessee, Shri Bipin Gar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ess, that demand is to be confirmed to the extent of cenvat credit available on aluminium ingots and not on aluminium castings. He accordingly confirmed demand of ₹ 4,27,092/- with equal penalty. The ld. Counsel points out that this amount is actually duty demanded on castings as calculated in para 1 (d) of show cause notice dated 1.7.2005. Such demand, he submitted, is against Commissioner (Appeals) own finding that demand can not be made on castings in the absence of any supporting evide .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

m the penal liability for contravention of legal provisions. 6. We have heard both the sides and perused appeal records. To consider assessee's appeal first, we find that they are contesting the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in paras 6.1 and 7 of the impugned order. We find that apart from arriving at contradictory findings regarding work-in-progress, the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider the explanation offered by the assessee about the accounting process and clearance of 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

 

 

 

 

 

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