Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
CGST - Acts + GST Rates GST Ntf. GST Forms GST - Manual GST - FAQ State GST Acts SGST Ntf. I. Tax Manual
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Classic Cosmetic Company Versus Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax, Guwahati

Waiver of pre-deposit - Benefit of area based exemption Notification No.32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999. - Revenue contended that since the Applicant were undisputedly engaged in the process of re-packing of goods from bulk packs, therefore they are not eligible to the benefit of said Notification w.e.f. 25.04.2007. - Held that:- On a careful analysis of the arguments advanced by both sides, we find the issue involved is substantial question of law and highly technical and debatable; it requires detai .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X



Stay granted. - Stay Petition No. SP-70884/2013, Appeal No. EA-70858/2013 - Dated:- 29-9-2015 - D M Misra, Member (J) And H K Thakur, Member (T) For the Appellants : Shri Ravi Raghavan, Adv. & Miss Satabdi Chatterjee, Advs For the Respondent : Shri K Chowdhury, Supdt. (AR) ORDER Per D M Misra 1. Heard both sides. 2. This is an Application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty of ₹ 60.68 Lakhs and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt that the amendment cannot be made applicable to the Units existing before the amendment i.e. 25.04.2007 and is applicable prospectively. In support of their contention that the amendment is not applicable to the units existing prior to 25.04.2007, the ld.Advocate referred to the judgement of Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Gillete India Ltd. v. UOI - 2009 (235) ELT 5(HP). Further, it is their argument that the process of packing from bulk packs to retail packs results i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed during the period is unsustainable in law. In support he has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CCE, Shillong v. Jellalpore Tea Estate - 2011 (268) ELT 14(Gau.). Further, he has submitted that the demand issued by the department is barred by limitation inasmuch as the appellant have been allowed the periodical refund of duty in accordance with the procedure laid down under Notification No.32/99 CE dt.08.07.1999 and no fact was concealed or suppressed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

re not laid down in establishing the fact that withdrawal of the exemption Notification would result a greater public interest than its continuation. It is his submission that no such situation did arise or exists in the present case. He has submitted that exemption is issued in the public interest by the Govt. of India and can be revoked at any time, if withdrawal of such exemption would serve a greater public interest. He further submits that the issue whether the activity result into manufact .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ew of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Bhopal -2011 (271) ELT 164(SC). On the aspect of limitation, he reiterated the findings of the ld. Commissioner. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. It is not in dispute that the Applicant have been availing the benefit of area based exemption Notification No.32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999. The dispute arose after insertion of the following clause to the said exemption Notification from .....

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 or Manipur or Nagaland or Arunachal Pradesh or Sikkim" 6. It is the contention of the Revenue that since the Applicant were undisputedly engaged in the process of re-packing of goods from bulk packs, therefore they are not eligible to the benefit of said Notification w.e.f. 25.04.2007. The argument of the Applicant on the other hand is that Notification No.32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999 was initially issued for a period of 10 years, and applicable to the Units situated in the area and therefor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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