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. Prem Cables Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE, Jaipur-II

2016 (2) TMI 640 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Demand of central excise and equal amount of penalty confirmed - Held that:- The goods were supplied by the appellant against the Purchase Orders issued by the Electricity Board. The Purchase Orders clearly show the ex factory price, sales tax, freight and insurance charges separately. The appellant have entered into an agreement with the Transport Company providing for payment of compensation on account of loss and damage to the goods direct to the consignee.

The only issue which may .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

le to a related person. The Revenue has not been able to prove that the partnership firm of M/s Miracle Trading Co. is a proxy with no separate entity. Neither is any case made out that part of the price of the goods is being realised by the transporting company for the benefit of the Appellant company. Therefore in the facts of the case we do not see any merit in the orders of the lower authorities and we are in agreement with the argument of the Appellants that the proceeds realised by M/s Mir .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dated 22.03.2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-II), Customs & Central Excise, Jaipur upholding the demand of central excise of ₹ 15,49,658/- and equal amount of penalty confirmed in the adjudication order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of AAC/ACSR conductors falling under Chapter 76 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The goods were supplied by the appellant to various Electricity Board through transporter, M/s. Miracle C .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ring for the appellants submits that the issue arising out of the present dispute is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of the appellant itself vide Order dated 18.01.2012 passed in Excise Appeal No.E/600 , 601, 603 of 2005 and Excise Appeal Nos.396 & 947 of 2006. 4. On the other hand, Shri R.K. Mishra, ld. AR appearing for the respondent reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order. 5. We have heard ld. Counsels for both the sides and perused the records .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

by the decision of this Tribunal vide Order dated 18.01.2012 relied on by the appellant. The relevant portion of the said order is extracted herein below:- 4. We have considered arguments on both the sides and the decisions given by the Apex Court in the matter. In the case of Escorts JCB Ltd. (supra) it has been held by Hon ble Apex Court that the place of removal in such cases is the factory gate and not the place at which goods are delivered. It has also been categorically ruled by the Apex .....

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