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 C. Ex., Chandigarh Versus Niranjan Decoflocks Pvt. Ltd.

2013 (11) TMI 1611 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Demand of interest - time limitation - Held that: - Since the Show Cause Notice for demand of interest has been issued beyond the expiry of normal limitation period of one year, the demand as such is time-barred - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/1725/2006-EX(DB) - Final Order No. A/58616/2013-EX(DB) - Dated:- 27-11-2013 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) and Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (T) Shri L.P. Asthana, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri B.B. Sharma, DR, for the Respondent. ORDER .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n No. 38/2003-C.E., dated 10-4-2003 (Serial No. 49). However, this exemption notification prescribed concessional rate of duty of 10% only for interlining fabrics and not for Flock textiles. Though the respondent along with other manufacturers had made a representation to the Central Board of Excise & Customs, in respect of period of dispute, they decided to pay the differential duty which came to ₹ 23,00,374/-. However a Show Cause Notice dated 16-2-2005 was issued to them that though .....

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 this order of the Assistant Commissioner, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 24-2-2006 set aside the interest demand. The reason given by the Commissioner (Appeals) for setting aside the demand was that during period of dispute the respondent had also cleared some inter-lining fabrics in respect of which the concessional rate of duty of 10% was applicable and as such the duty of ₹ 9,38,175/- which has already been paid by the respondent in respect of inter-lining fabr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ss amount of duty claimed to have paid by the respondent on inter-lining is incorrect, that if any excess duty had been paid, the respondent should have filed refund claim in respect of the same and that Commissioner (Appeals) could not allow the interest demand against such claim of payment of excess duty. He, therefore, pleaded that the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not correct. 4. Sh. L.P. Asthana, learned counsel for the respondent, pleaded that the demand for interest .....

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