Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (2) TMI 202 - CESTAT CHENNAI

2016 (2) TMI 202 - CESTAT CHENNAI - 2016 (344) E.L.T. 543 (Tri. - Chennai) - Duty liability - whether the finished goods i.e. bars and rods and ingots and billets lying in stock as on 1.8.99 is chargeable to duty at specific rate of duty as per the notification No.50/97 or standard rate of 16% advalorem? - Held that:- Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has dealt the issue in detail and clearly brought out that appellants have failed to produce any evidence that stock of goods lying in appellant .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Since the appellants have opted only on 1.8.99 and there is no evidence to show that the stocks were prior to 1.9.97 we find that rate of duty is applicable is as per the tariff rate of 16% advalorem. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected. - Decided against assessee - Appeal No. E/412/2004 - Final Order No.40143/2016 - Dated:- 29-1-2016 - SHRI R. PERIASAMI, TECHNICAL MEMBER AND SHRI P.K .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sioner in his order dropped the differential duty in respect of bars and rods and ingots and billets. Against which Revenue filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). Commissioner (Appeals) in his impugned order set aside that portion of the order dropping differential duty and ordered for recovery of the demand as per SCN. 2. Ld. advocate for the appellant submits that as per Notification No.50/97 dt. 1.8.97 they have paid specific rate of duty on the stocks of finished goods lying and declare .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

elied on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Chandigarh Vs Asian Alloys Ltd. - 2007-TIOL-183-SC-CX. 3. On the other hand, Ld. A.R for Revenue reiterates the findings of Commissioner (Appeals) and also submits that as per Notfn 50/97 payment of duty at specific rate of duty is applicable for the stock of finished goods manufactured or produced prior to 1.9.97 whereas in this case appellants have opted for compound levy scheme w.e.f. 1.8.99 after two years. He also submit .....

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