GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (2) TMI 147 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (2) TMI 147 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - 2016 (343) E.L.T. 353 (Tri. - Del.) - Liability of the appellant for higher rate of duty based on the test reports of NTH - Held that:- The purpose of the order was to equalize prices and secure supply of cement through out the country. The object is to see that the price is controlled or in other words to see that it does not go beyond the maximum price fixed. The quality of the cement for this rate is fixed as per the contract entered by appellant with DGS .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e maximum price and the minimum quality of the commodity having been fixed in pursuance of the Cement Control Order notified by the Government; and when there is no evidence to show that appellant sold the cement of higher quality at a higher price, merely on the basis of certain test reports it cannot be concluded that appellant has committed any suppression of facts. There is no evidence to show that the appellant were in receipt of certain test reports indicating higher specific surface of 35 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oner : Ms. Priyanka Goel, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Neha Garg, DR ORDER Per B. Ravichandran The appellants are manufacturers of cement liable to central excise duty. Certain proceedings were initiated against them to demand differential central excise duty of ₹ 11,26,440/- in respect of cement cleared during the period 13.06.76 to 22.01.1977. The Revenue held that the appellant cleared cement with specific surface of not less than 3500 CM2/g chargeable to ₹ 91 per MT instead .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ue process, the Asstt. Commissioner vide his order dated 5.8.1980 confirmed the demand. The appellant approached the Honble Rajasthan High Court. The Honble Rajasthan High Court vide order dated 21.09.87 directed the Original Authority to decide the case afresh. Accordingly, the case was decided afresh by the Joint Commissioner vide order dated 18.03.2005. On appeal, the Commissioner directed for de novo decision vide his order dad 22.07.2005. The Original Authority, Joint Commissioner passed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

imum fineness required as per this standard should not be less than 2250 CM2/g. In order to ensure the quality, it was provided in the contract that the appellant would draw samples weekly and send these samples to National Test House who will report directly to DGS&D. Ld. Counsel pleaded that they have no intimation about further outcome on testing of these samples and they have been receiving only ₹ 214.65 per MT in terms of contract. This amount is as per rate for cement of 2250 CM2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e, they were not even aware that some of their clearances were of different quality as they have never received any intimation either from DGS& D or from National Test House. In these circumstances, there is no basis to demand duty from them. They have been all along clearing only ordinary Portland cement, which is confirmed regularly by their internal testing. Certain reports by NTH indicated a higher quality cement by itself will not make them liable for higher duty as they have not collec .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

st reports of NTH. The admitted facts of the case are that the appellants were clearing ordinary Portland cement in terms of DGS&D rate contract. Regular samples were drawn by the appellant and sent to National Test House in terms of the contract to satisfy the quality of cement supplied. Out of 70 samples sent for testing on a weekly basis, 14 samples indicated specific surface of not less than 3500 CM2 / g. This is the only basis for demanding differential duty . The other admitted facts 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

d. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appellants claim without any explanation. He further observed that in the classification list under Rule 173B, the appellant did not declare the correct specific surface in respect of 14 samples in order to avoid paying higher rate of duty. This observation of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is not sustainable as the appellant themselves were in dark about certain samples having specific surface higher than what is contracted for supply. This is evident fro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d, we find that there has neither been a discussion nor finding justifying the demand for extended period. He observes that the issue of invoking extended period has been settled by the Hon ble Court subject to factual verification of mis-statement and mis-declaration. The mis-declaration alleged against the appellant is the classification list filed under Rule 173 B stating specific surface of cement at 2250 CM2/g. This declaration is apparently based on their rate contract with DGS&D. Unde .....

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