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 Versus M/s Telecords India Pvt Ltd And Vica-Versa

2016 (1) TMI 273 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Duty demand - Under-valuation - Imposition of penalty - Held that:- Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that assessee has informed about the merger of the units, and has submitted periodical returns, clarification and price declarations to the department. After 01/4/2000 the submission of classification and price declaration was dispensed with by the amendment brought forth in Rule 173B and 173C of erstwhile Central Excise Rules. The conclusion of the Commissioner (Appeals) in para 21 of the imp .....

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 agreement and they were filing monthly returns also. Further it is seen that the Hon'ble High Court has granted order of merger with effect from 01/04/2000. In such circumstances, we do not find any evidence to establish conscious with holding of information or suppression of facts on the part of the assessee with intention to evade payment of duty. Therefore the notice issued invoking the extended period is therefore not sustainable. In view thereof, the impugned order is liable to be set as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

venue that assessee cleared the goods to the related person, their sister unit viz. M/s Aksh India Ltd. (later M/s Aksh Optifibre Ltd., Bhiwadi) during the period from August 1999 to June 2000, at lower value than the value charged from other buyers during the aforesaid period. Show cause notice dated 27/07/2004 was issued raising the allegation of under valuation of goods. After adjudication order-in-original was passed confirming the duty demand, interest and penalty. In appeal, the Commission .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

establish suppression of facts, willful misstatement or fraud with intention to evade payment of duty on the part of the assessee. It is pointed by the learned Counsel that the provisions of sub-Section (3) of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was introduced only w.e.f. 07/07/2000 and was not applicable during the period August 1999 to June 2000. During the said period clause (c) of sub-Section (4) of Section 4 of the Act was applicable and according to these provisions merely being a re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

acts and had declared the prices at which goods were cleared by supplying to the department the copy of the agreement entered with their sister unit. That the show cause notice issued after expiry of one year is time barred. 4. Per contra, the learned DR reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) on merits. Regarding the issue of limitation he submitted that the appellants had not submitted any price declarations and therefore amounted to suppression of facts. He argued that the Commi .....

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