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 Valiant Communication Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Delhi-I

2016 (2) TMI 106 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Cost recovery charges - whether the appellant never opted to operate under cost recovery scheme, confirmation of amount" under the said scheme by the authorities below is not proper and justified? - Held that:- The appellant vide its letter dated 15. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o 2009, when the appellant had paid ₹ 2,32,500/- for operating under the cost recovery scheme, it is evident that the charges are payable in entirety by the appellant, which has not been paid. Thus, the short paid amount on that account is paya .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

3-E[SM] - Dated:- 9-12-2015 - S. K. Mohanty, Member (J) For the Appellant : Mr D N Chaturvedi, Adv For the Respondent : Mr Vaibhav Bhatnagar, DR ORDER Per S K Mohanty The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is registered with the Central E .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ded Warehouse with manufacture in bond facility under Section 58 and 65 of the Customs Act, 1962 and has excepted B-17 Bond along with bank guarantee before the jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities. During the course of audit in the factory of t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he regulation 4(v) of Manufacture and other Operations in Warehouse Regulations Act, 1966 read with Section 65 of the Customs Act, 1962 and CBEC Circular No. 31/2003-Cus dated 7.4.2003, the short paid cost recovery charges was confirmed alongwith pen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ds cost recovery charges. However, the interest amount confirmed in the adjudication order was dropped and also the penalty was reduced to ₹ 5,000/- vide the impugned order. Confirmation of the cost recovery charges in the impugned order is the .....

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 to the Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, the appellant specifically mentioned that it wants to operate under the Merchant Over Time (MOT) Scheme. Thus, according to the Ld. Advocate, since the appellant never opted to operate u .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he Revenue submits that during the calendar years 2007, 2008 and 2009, the appellant paid ₹ 2,32,500/- per year on its own and from 2010, it opted to operate under the MOT Scheme. It is his submission that since the appellant on its own had opt .....

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
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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